Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays when Mr X bought his home from the Council. Part of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. Mr X could reasonably have served Delay Notices to protect his position. Mr X could reasonably have taken court action about the delay when he had the right. Mr X could also reasonably take court action for the compensation he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed unduly selling his home to him under the “right to buy.” He says this caused financial loss and stress and delayed his plans for himself and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. It took three years and four months, from 2021 to 2024, to complete Mr X’s application to buy his home from the Council. The Council gave Mr X a goodwill payment of £1,500.
8. Mr X complained to us in December 2024. However, in May 2024 the Council’s final response to Mr X’s complaint had wrongly advised Mr X to contact a different organisation rather than us. That delayed Mr X coming to us. I have therefore presumed Mr X would have come to us in May 2024 if he had known he could. So I have not treated the complaint about events after May 2023 as late. Nevertheless, the complaint about any delay before May 2023 is late, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner about those matters. I am not persuaded to accept the late parts of the complaint now.
9. Even if none of the complaint was late, or if there was good reason to accept the late parts of the complaint (neither of which is the case), there are other reasons I shall not investigate the complaint.
10. Mr X says he continued paying rent to the Council for a period when he should already have bought his property and should no longer have been paying rent. The law gives anyone using the ‘right to buy’ the right to serve Delay Notices if they believe the Council is not progressing the transaction properly. Delay Notices mean any rent paid during the delay is deducted from the purchase price when the transaction completes. Serving Delay Notices is the way the law expects tenants buying their homes to protect their financial position if the Council delays.
11. If Mr X had served Delay Notices, the Council should have deducted the rent paid during any delay from the eventual purchase price. If Mr X had served Delay Notices and the Council had not then reduced the purchase price, Mr X could have challenged the Council or taken court action at the time.
12. The Council says Mr X did not serve any Delay Notices. In that case, it is nevertheless reasonable to expect Mr X should have served notices at the time of the delay. The law expressly provides this route for such situations. Buying a home is an important and expensive matter, so it is reasonable to expect anyone doing so to find out about and act on their legal rights, including with legal advice and representation where necessary. As Mr X did not serve Delay Notices at the time, it is not for us to try to rectify that now, or to ask the Council to act as if it had a duty to refund rent where the lack of Delay Notices means it had no such duty.
13. Also, the law allows the county court to decide any dispute about the right to buy, except for disputes over the valuation of property. (Housing Act 1985, section 181) So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. If Mr X thought the Council was delaying finalising matters, he could have asked the court for an order to progress matters. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. There might be some cost to court action, but that in itself does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as a home. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used the right to go to court.
14. Mr X also says the delay in buying his home meant he had to change the arrangements for the loan to buy his home and it changed or delayed his family’s decisions about their living arrangements. He wants compensation for the “standstill this process put on my future plans and family life.” This point is really a claim for compensation for consequential or economic loss. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. That is for the courts. Such matters are not straightforward legally. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action if he wants a decision on this.
15. Mr X also complains about the Council directing him to a different organisation rather than us in May 2024. I shall draw this to the Council’s attention, but beyond that I shall not take further action on this point. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint-handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Part of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. Mr X could reasonably have served Delay Notices to protect his position. Mr X could reasonably have taken court action regarding the delay when he had the right. Mr X could also reasonably take court action for the compensation he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman