The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay progressing Mr X's purchase of his Council home. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council delayed his application to buy his home and did not deal properly with his communications about the delay. He says this caused stress and inconvenience, he had to pay rent for longer, and had to take a more expensive mortgage after his original mortgage offer expired during the delay.
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, or could have taken, the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect, or to have expected the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the delay meant he paid rent longer than necessary after he should already have bought his home and started mortgage repayments. The law covering the right to buy entitles tenants to serve Delay Notices on the Council if there is undue delay in the process. Any rent paid after a Delay Notice takes effect is deducted from the purchase price when the sale eventually completes. We would expect Mr X to have served Delay Notices, especially as he had legal advice. If Delay Notices were served, the extra time paying rent did not in itself disadvantage Mr X financially, because the eventual purchase price would have reduced accordingly. If Mr X did not serve Delay Notices, that is not the Council’s fault.
In any event, before the sale completed, Mr X had the right to go to the county court about any problem with his right to buy application (except the valuation, which is not relevant here). (Housing Act 1985, section 181) So Mr X could have asked the court to order the Council to end the delay and progress the sale. The Council would have had the chance to put forward any defence and the court could have decided the matter. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this complaint.
As the law expressly provides this route for such difficulties with the right to buy, we normally expect people to use that right. Mr X had legal advice, which adds to the expectation that it was reasonable to go to court. Court action might have had cost implications. However, Mr X could have asked the court for his costs if he was successful. Also, in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Mr X’s home, the potential cost of court action did not in itself make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to take that action. For these reasons I consider it was reasonable in the circumstances to expect Mr X to have gone to court when he had the right.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right to go to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman