The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to accept the complainant’s Right to Buy application as she did not meet its identity verification requirements. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to challenge the refusal by using the alternative court remedy that is available.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council refusing to accept her Right to Buy (RtB) application as the signature she provided on her application documents did not match the signature on her passport.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1985 carries a specific provision (at section 181) for RtB applicants to challenge any matters arising during the process in the county court. With reference to paragraph 3 above, if Mrs X wishes to challenge the Council’s refusal of her application, it seems reasonable to expect her to use the alternative court remedy to do so. In particular, the court can, if it sees fit, overturn the Council’s decision and make a binding order, which is something the Ombudsman could not do.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expert her to use the alternative court remedy which is available.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman