The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing Mr X’s ‘right to buy’ application. This is mainly because the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now.
The complaint
Mr X complains of various problems with his application to buy his home from the Council. He says these significantly delayed the completion of the purchase.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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) It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The events Mr X complains of with his ‘right to buy’ application happened between May 2020 and September 2022. Mr X complained to us in April 2024. That was nearly four years after the events complained of started and 19 months after they ended. The restriction in paragraph 3 therefore applies to the complaint.
Mr X refers to some mental health problems. I appreciate those might have had some impact on his ability to pursue matters, but I am not convinced they explain such a long delay. However, I note Mr X was able to pursue the purchase of his home in the relevant period. Overall, I am not satisfied any such difficulties mean we should investigate the complaint now, so long after most of the events complained of.
Mr X did not make a formal complaint to the Council until November 2023. That was already 14 months after the most recent of the events complained of. So any delay in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint does not significantly affect my decision on the lateness of the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Overall, I consider Mr X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner. I do not see good enough reason to investigate this late complaint now.
Even if the points in paragraphs 8 to 11 did not apply, there are other reasons we shall not investigate the complaint.
Mr X wants the Council to offset the rent he paid during the Council’s alleged delay against the purchase price he paid the Council for his home. The Council has only offered this for a shorter period than Mr X wants.
Anyone claiming the ‘right to buy’ has the right to serve initial and operative delay notices on the Council if they believe the Council is delaying unduly. Those notices have the effect of offsetting rent against the purchase price in the way Mr X now says he wants. We normally expect people to serve such notices. Mr X says the Council did not directly tell him about delay notices. However, the Council says the information was on its website. Moreover, on an important and expensive matter such as buying a property, the applicant has their own responsibility. We would expect Mr X to have informed himself about his rights, including through taking legal advice as necessary. As Mr X did not serve delay notices, it is unlikely we would pursue this part of the complaint even if the points in paragraphs 8 to 11 above did not apply.
One of the results Mr X wants from his complaint is reimbursement of extra costs he says the Council’s faults caused him to incur, such as solicitors’ fees and having to get a more expensive mortgage. Anyone dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of their ‘right to buy’ claim can go to the county court, which has the power to decide any ‘right to buy’ point (except the valuation of the property). (Housing Act 1985, section 181) So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies here.
The law expressly provides this route for deciding such matters, so we normally expect people to use it. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically mean we should investigate instead. The potential cost of court action, when compared with the compensation Mr X was seeking and in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset (Mr X’s home) does not make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to have taken court action. I also note Mr X had legal advice while buying his home. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right to take court action on this point.
Mr X also seeks compensation for alleged damage to his mental health. That is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies here, too. As explained above, the possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. The existence of, liability for, and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide these matters. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court on this point.
Mr X also complains the Council delayed dealing with his formal complaint and did not reply to his requests for updates during that time. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. Mr X could reasonably have served delay notices if he wanted his rent offset against the purchase price during any delay by the Council. It is more appropriate for the courts to consider the alleged personal injury. Mr X could reasonably have taken court action before completing the purchase regarding compensation for the extra costs he claims the Council was responsible for. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman