Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s administration of a loan which her father took out for home improvements in 2011. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a legal agreement with a private company signed in 2011 which is outside the normal 12-month period for accepting complaints. There are no good reasons to consider it now.

The complaint

1. Ms X believes her father may have been mis-sold a loan which he took out with a company under a partnership scheme to improve housing. She says the company may have taken advantage of a vulnerable man who did not understand the equity share basis of the loan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Ms X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X says her father signed a loan with a company participating in a partnership scheme to improve housing in his area in 2011. She says he may have been a victim of mis-selling because he did not fully understand the implications of an equity share loan which increase with the value of the property. The Council took over the existing loans in 2012 when no further government funding was made available for the scheme.
6. When she complained in 2020 it told Ms X that it was not party to the arranging of the loan and that the Kickstart scheme involved contact from financial advisors who were regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The loan terms have not changed since Ms X’s father signed in 2011 and they are part of a legal agreement. The Council advised Ms X that she should contact the Financial Services Ombudsman if she believes the original loan was mis-sold.
7. Analysis
8. Ms X’s father signed a legal agreement for the loan in 2011. The loan terms have not changed and he did not challenge the valuation of his property at the time. The restriction outlined in paragraph 2 applies here because Ms X complains about a matter which her father was aware of more than 12 months ago. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case there are no good reasons to accept the complaint now.
9. The Council is not the party with whom Mr X signed the loan and complaints about mis-selling are matters which fall within the remit of the Financial Services Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a legal agreement with a private company signed in 2011 which is outside the normal 12-month period for accepting complaints. There are no good reasons to consider it now.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman