The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to let Mrs X buy her Council house. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right to go to court.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to buy her home. The Council said Mrs X had the right to buy, but later said the right to buy did not apply because the property had adaptations for elderly or disabled people. Mrs X believes that is wrong, since she argues the house does not meet all the criteria necessary to be excluded from the right to buy.
Mrs X says the Council’s faults prevented her buying her house, damaged her mental health and caused stress, inconvenience and expense. She wants to buy her house and to receive compensation for what happened.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The central point of the complaint is the disagreement between Mrs X and the Council about whether the right to buy applies to Mrs X’s property. Mrs X has the right to go to the county court about this. (Housing Act 1985, section 181) Therefore the restriction in paragraph 3 above applies to this point.
The law expressly provides the right to go to court for disputes on right to buy matters including this. The court can, if it sees fit, overturn the Council’s decision and make a binding order, which the Ombudsman could not do. Whether Mrs X’s property is excluded from the right to buy under the legal provision the Council cites is not necessarily legally straightforward. So it is more appropriate for the court than the Ombudsman to consider it. The potential cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman rather than the court should deal with this. That is especially so in the context of Mrs X seeking to buy a valuable asset. Overall, I consider it would be reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court for a decision on this point, so we shall not investigate it.
There was also a disagreement about whether Mrs X’s husband’s immigration status meant he could not be included on the right to buy application. As the Council’s final position was that the property was not eligible for the right to buy anyway, this question is currently peripheral to the main issue affecting the application to buy the house. Besides, the court could also consider this point, so, for the reasons given above, we shall not investigate it.
Mrs X says the Council’s alleged faults worsened her mental health. That is essentially a claim of personal injury, so the courts could consider it. Showing whether or how someone’s health was damaged and legal liability for that are not straightforward points legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider this.
Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council for not doing some repairs she considered urgent after she applied for the right to buy. This point is about the Council’s management of its social housing in its role as a registered provider of social housing. The restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point, so the Ombudsman cannot consider it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is mainly because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to go to court on the main points.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman