The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council’s method of sale for a property did not achieve its true market value. He said the method of sale prevented him from purchasing the property at a higher price. We do not find the Council at fault.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained that the Council’s method of sale for a property did not achieve its true market value. He said the method of sale prevented him from purchasing the property at a higher price.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Court of Protection can give appoint a council as a deputy to manage the financial affairs of people who lack mental capacity. The Office of the Public Guardian handles the ongoing administration after the Court of Protection makes its decision.
The Council has a policy about deputyship and selling houses under its deputyship duties. This says that once the Council has approval from the Office of the Public Guardian to sell a property, the Council will employ an estate agent. The Council is then guided by the estate agent as to how best to sell the property to achieve the highest price.
What happened The Court of Protection appointed the Council as a deputy for someone. This person owned a house that had been damaged by fire. The Council, under its deputyship powers, had to sell the house.
An estate agent gave the Council a valuation of £30,000. The Council decided to auction the property to get the best price. The Council employed an online auctioneer to sell the property.
The auctioneer told the Council they had received an offer of £44,000. The Council said it would accept this offer provided there were no higher offers.
Mr X found the property advertised online. He contacted the estate agent to arrange a viewing. The next day, Mr X says the estate agent told him the property had been sold.
Mr X complained to the Council that he did not get an opportunity to bid on the property, even though he was prepared to bid higher than the agreed sale price.
The Council said it did not know about his interest in the property until after it had been sold. It said it relied on the auctioneer to get the best price for the property, and it believed it had achieved the highest price available at the time.
Analysis Mr X complains that the Council’s method of sale for the property did not achieve its true market value. He says if the Council had sold the property at a “proper” auction (rather than a ‘modern method of auction’), it would have achieved a higher price. He says he missed the opportunity to buy the property at a higher price because of the Council’s method of sale.
The Council is entitled to use whatever means of sale it deems fit to sell a property. It used an estate agent and an auctioneer, which it is entitled to do. The fact that the auctioneer is an online auctioneer is not fault.
I do not find fault with the method the Council used to sell the property. The Ombudsman cannot challenge the merits of a decision where that decision was made without fault.
Ultimately, the Council had a duty to obtain the highest price for the property. It believed it had obtained the highest price available at the time. The Council relied on the estate agent to achieve the highest price, which it believed the estate agent did.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman