Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202102362)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102362

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

21 December 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the local authority’s decision not to grant the resident the right to buy.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced in March 1995.
  2. The resident explained in her correspondence to the landlord that she was granted the opportunity to purchase the property in 2004 but delayed this process for personal reasons.
  3. The resident submitted her right to buy application in July 2020; this was denied in August 2020. The resident appealed, but the landlord did not change its decision. The landlord cited the Housing Act 1985 criteria which it relied on when denying the application (September 2020).
  4. In October 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about its response to her right to buy application.
    1. The resident explained that the landlord did not address the evidence which she provided about the property; she had been granted permission in 2004 to purchase it.
    2. The resident disputed the landlord’s classification of the property (as “group of dwelling fit for disabled use”) and that it considered the property to be “substantially different” due to a bathroom extension at the rear of the property.
    3. The resident explained that the adaptation was privately funded and not a local authority installation; she disputed that the landlord could take ownership of something which it did not install or maintain.
    4. The resident requested a review of the decision on the ground that the original review was factually incorrect and there was an oversight of the evidence.
  5. In November 2020 the landlord responded at stage one to the complaint.
    1. It explained that there was “no evidence” that she was advised that her right to buy application would be successful and this would only be determined at the point of application.
    2. The landlord acknowledged that it did not complete the work to the property. However, it said that “whoever the work was completed by, the property is still within the ownership of Dudley MBC and is subject to the same rules and regulations within the Housing Act 1985”.
    3. It considered that the application met all the criteria and had been denied correctly.
  6. In December 2020 the resident’s son wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf and requested a review of the complaint. In his letter, he set out the reasons why the landlord’s decision was factually incorrect and had not taken into account the appropriate evidence.
  7. In January 2021 the landlord issued its stage two (final) response. It considered the resident’s outstanding dispute and set out its findings.
    1. The resident considered that the property was not substantially different from ordinary dwelling houses.
    2. The resident said that the landlord had provided an assurance to the resident that she would be able to purchase the property.
    3. The resident said that the installed facilities in the property should not prevent the resident’s right to buy because they were privately funded and the resident could choose to remove them at any time.
    4. The landlord found that the property was adapted for disability needs and was therefore excluded from the right to buy scheme.
    5. The right to buy legislation did not differentiate between adaptations that were funded through the local authority or privately.
    6. It did not agree that the resident could remove adaptations at any time and said that she would need permission under the tenancy conditions.
    7. It disagreed that it provided an assurance to the resident by the wording of its previous communication and said that it would check over the standard wording of its letters to make its wording clearer.
  8. In April 2021 the resident submitted a web complaint form to the Ombudsman and explained that the landlord denied the right to buy application without a “proper and measured consultation or review of the evidence”. The resident sought for the landlord to re-open the case and review the evidence which she said that she provided to it.
  9. It is acknowledged that the resident was not informed of the likely jurisdiction issue when she first raised her complaint to this Service. The Ombudsman has now considered the full details of the complaint and it has found that it is not within its jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service has a memorandum of understanding with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) which sets out the respective jurisdiction of the two Ombudsman for different categories of complaints. Under Annex B, complaints about the sale of housing (right to buy) for tenants of local authorities are not within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
  3. The resident’s dispute is about the landlord’s response to her right to buy application. She has disputed that the landlord has considered the appropriate evidence and that its decision was not factually accurate. As the landlord is a local authority, this complaint falls into the category of those which may be considered by the LGSCO, per the memorandum of understanding between the two Ombudsman Services.
  4. The resident may enquire with the LGSCO (https://www.lgo.org.uk/) in respect of the outstanding complaint.