Summary: We found fault on Ms P’s complaint about the Council disputing the valuation from the District Valuer during the right to buy process. It failed to tell her it had challenged this valuation. It also delayed dealing with her complaint according to its complaints procedure. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms P complains about the Council:
1. disputing the District Valuer’s determination when she exercised her right to buy her flat; and
2. failing to deal properly with her formal complaint.
2. As a result, she suffered stress, anxiety, had the completion of the purchase delayed as the new determination did not change the initial valuation, which meant she paid three months extra rent.

Back to top

Right to buy law: Housing Act 1985

3. A tenant can challenge the landlord’s valuation within three months of receiving the section 125 notice (offer notice setting out the price) asking for a determination of value by the District Valuer. (section 128)
4. The landlord can also ask the District Valuer for a review of the determination. (section 128A and 128B)

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered all the information Ms P sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms P and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms P has lived in her property, which she rented from the Council, for about five years. She is unhappy with the Council’s decision to challenge a valuation given by the District Valuer during the right to buy process. Following the challenge, the District Valuer came back with the same value as before. The Council’s actions delayed her purchase. She is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her formal complaint.

Complaint a): Disputing the District Valuer’s valuation

9. In June 2021, Ms P sent the Council her right to buy application.
10. In July, the Council sent her an offer notice which valued the property at £155,000. This surprised her as it was based on a desk top assessment only. No Council surveyor visited to inspect it. A Council surveyor had called her beforehand, but she says he had no basic information about the property such as its layout, number of bedrooms, and whether it had a garden, for example.
11. The Council inspected properties for right to buy valuations before the spread of Covid-19. Since March 2020, it did desk top valuations. Following its risk assessment for Covid-19, and guidance issued by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) at the time, it decided to suspend all site visits as many of its tenants were in vulnerable groups. RICS guidance said valuers may have enough information to do the assessment but information from clients, third parties, and previous internal records, could help.
12. It confirmed it had layout documents for properties but does call tenants to discuss and clarify queries and issues. It uses information it has on file, including existing floor plans, layouts, satellite imagery, and information from the applicant. Applicants are also invited to send photographs. It noted the majority of the 39,000 homes it manages come within a limited number of construction types and layouts.
13. In August 2021, the District Valuer told the Council Ms J had challenged its valuation. This was because she thought the Council’s valuation too high.
14. In October, the District Valuer issued a valuation of £125,000. At this point, Ms J paid for the building society’s surveyor to visit the property as she says the Council sent her a revised offer based on the new valuation. She also got local searches done for the purchase. She received her mortgage offer and instructed solicitors.
15. In November, she received notification of the Council challenging the District Valuer’s figure. The Council explained why it challenged the valuation. This was because it considered the market for housing in the area she lives in as ‘fast paced’. It also believed the comparable evidence used by the District Valuer did not reflect values in her area as it used lower value areas of the city.
16. Ms J later found out the Council’s right to buy team was not told about the challenge for a month which is why it had not told her. She says by this time, she had just spent £200 on a survey and £250 on searches which she could have made later had she known about the challenge. Ms P sent a complaint to the Council.
17. In December, another District Valuer visited and shortly afterwards, confirmed the valuation of £125,000.
18. The sale of the property was completed before March 2022.
19. She claims as a result of the Council’s challenge, she paid rent for a further three months because of the delay.
20. When the Council replied to her complaint it accepted and apologised for poor customer service and the failure to communicate with its right to buy team about the intention to ask the District Valuer for a review of its valuation. Since, it changed its procedures to ensure this does not happen in future and set up better communication channels.

My findings

21. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. I found no fault with the Council’s approach to carrying out desk top assessments. I have seen a copy of its ‘Covid-19 Risk Management for Site Visits’ which looked at how it could reduce the risk from the virus. This encouraged officers to gather information from existing sources where possible. I have also seen evidence of its decision making when the Council decided officers would not make home visits for these valuations and should use external valuations, as well as contacting tenants by telephone or letter for example.

I note the change in the Council’s approach to doing valuations was the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2021, the country was in lockdown from January to March with legal restrictions only fully ending in England in July. Face masks became compulsory in most indoor public venues in December, for example.

I am satisfied the Council was entitled to introduce this policy which officers followed during the right to buy process for Ms P’s application.

2. Ms P challenged the Council’s valuation of the property in August 2021 as she was legally entitled to do. The District Valuer issued its valuation in October, about eight weeks later. Her challenge clearly delayed the overall process.
3. The Council challenged the District Valuer’s valuation in November, which it was also legally entitled to do. The District Valuer issued its valuation in December, about six weeks later. This challenge also clearly delayed the overall process.
4. It was not fault, therefore, for the Council to challenge the District Valuer’s decision. The overall delay to completing the right to buy process was due to both parties challenging valuations.
5. As the Council accepted, it failed to tell Ms P it challenged the District Valuer’s decision. This was because one department failed to tell the right to buy team, which was Ms P’s main point of contact throughout the process. This failure is fault.
6. I am satisfied this caused Ms P some injustice. While this caused her some frustration, I note she discovered what the Council had done within about 4 weeks. I am not satisfied the Council should refund the survey and searches done. This is because she provided no evidence of having to pay for a further survey as a result of the Council’s failure to tell her about the challenge. In addition, I also took account of the fact the search results would remain valid for six months. The sale of the property was completed before March 2022 and the search results remained valid until April.

Complaint b): complaint procedure

22. Ms P is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her formal complaint about its actions.
23. Ms P’s initial contact in November 2021 did not express itself as a complaint and ended by asking for a meeting to discuss her concerns. When she later chased the Council, it responded saying managers would respond to her. A senior surveyor responded and sent her the link to its website which explained how to make a formal complaint.
24. In January 2022, further correspondence from Ms P referred to making a claim against the Council for emotional distress. She did not say she wanted to make a formal complaint. The same officer responded to her email and again sent her a further link about how to make a formal complaint.
25. When she emailed again on 2 March, she referred to seeking compensation. At this point, the Council decided to treat this contact under the first stage of its complaints procedure. It sent her its response on 28 March. If she wanted to take it to stage 2, she needed to let it know within 28 days (25 April).
26. On 12 April she contacted the Council again with comments, ending by saying she would wait its response before deciding how to proceed. The Council replied the next day saying she could take it to the next stage if she remained unhappy. She replied about claiming compensation and considered it appropriate to complain to us. On 26 April, she asked for it to be referred on to the next stage.
27. An officer confirmed in early May it would be referred on. Ms P chased the Council about a week later. At the end of May, Ms P chased the Council as she had heard nothing further. The officer replied in early June apologising and would chase it up.
28. In July, we were contacted by Ms P, and we asked the Council about her formal complaint. Internal emails show officers considered it was being dealt with at stage 2.
29. In August, an internal email shows an officer confirming it was at stage 2 but thought it appropriate for this to be now done outside of the service. Another department would be asked to look at it. The officer emailed Ms P apologising for the delay and explained this was due to other commitments.
30. The stage 2 response was finally sent on 4 October.
31. The Council accepted there was significant delays in reviewing the complaint at stage 2 of the complaints procedure. This was due to significant restructuring taking place across the services which meant it had reduced capacity.

My findings

32. The Council’s complaints procedure provides for the following stages:

• Problem solving: When it receives a complaint, the officer receiving it can resolve it through ‘problem solving’. This involves contacting the person to see what the problem is, understanding it, and where possible, agreeing a way forward and taking action to put things right. If it cannot be resolved, or it needs more formal investigation, it progresses to the review stage. This should take three working days but can only be extended by agreement with the complainant.
• First stage: This is the investigation stage and should be completed within 28 calendar days from receipt of the complaint.
• Second stage: This is a chance to review the investigation process, conclusions reached, and steps to resolve the complaint. It is done by the ‘accountable manager’. This stage should be completed within 28 days from the receipt of the complainant’s continued dissatisfaction.

33. I am satisfied with the Council taking her email in March 2022 as the start date for the complaint process and not earlier. Emails I have seen from Ms P from November 2021 did not set out clearly that she wanted to make a complaint under its complaints procedure. Much of it involved her querying and challenging points and asking for compensation. I am satisfied the Council followed its timescale under its complaints procedure when responding to her complaint at the first stage.
34. While I have noted the problems the Council faced which contributed to the delay in dealing with her stage 2 request, I am satisfied the delay in responding to it amounts to fault. She asked for her complaint to go to the next stage in April 2022. She did not get her stage 2 response until October. This is five months after she should have received it. Nor have I seen the Council giving her regular updates during this period explaining what was happening, if anything, why it was taking longer than usual, and when she might expect a response.
35. I am satisfied the fault caused her injustice. She was caused avoidable distress in the form of frustration, uncertainty as to what was happening, and lost the opportunity of having her complaint decided earlier than it was.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. I considered our guidance on remedies.
37. I have also considered action the Council has already taken which includes: the apology already given for the communication failure between departments; procedures put in place to ensure any challenge of the District Valuer’s decision is communicated to tenants buying their homes and only after full collaboration with the right to buy team by the surveyors; a workshop between the departments to share best practice and improve customer focus; reviewing the reintroduction of property right to buy inspections.
38. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Ms P an apology for failing to deal with her complaint under the second stage of its complaints procedure within stated timescales.
2. Pay £100 to Ms P for the injustice caused by the delay responding to her complaint.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I found fault on Ms P’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman