Mrs F and her partner Mr R lived in a council house. The couple tried on two occasions to exercise a Right to Buy their home. There was a problem because Mrs F was joint tenant with her husband, who had disappeared several years earlier.
Macclesfield Council rightly saw this as an issue but failed to advise the couple about a possible way ahead. The house had roughly doubled in value by the time the sale was eventually achieved in October 2004.
Ombudsman Anne Seex found maladministration by the Council causing injustice. She found that the Council had generally been unhelpful and had, in effect, obstructed the couple in exercising their rights. The Council had not given proper advice and had been too rigid in the application of its policy on what to do when a joint tenancy was ended. The result of this was that the couple were prevented from buying their home significantly sooner than they did, and at a much lower price.
To remedy the injustice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council establish the value of the house in October 2002 using an independent valuation. It should then refund the couple the difference between that valuation and what they actually paid.
Local Government Ombudsman Report No. 04/C/17184
In a dispute over whether he had exercised the Right to Buy of his home, Mr Gregory sought Judicial Review. The Judge transferred the claim, for ordinary trial in the High Court.
The claim succeeded and Mr Gregory was awarded his costs.
Tower Hamlets Council appealed on the grounds the claim should have been brought in the County Court. As it had not been heard in the County Court, the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 s181(3) deprived the High Court of power to award Mr Gregory costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal and ruled that the original claim had raised issues, which could be addressed on Judicial Review. Therefore, it was not possible to say that the requirements of s181(3) had been met.
Gregory v Tower Hamlets LBC [2006] All ER(D) 65 (Jul), 6 July, CA