Summary: Mr X complains that the Council provided misleading information to him as a landlord and compelled him to meet conditions when applying for a licence that were either unlawful or unreasonable. The Ombudsman will not investigate as Mr X is not caused significant injustice from the alleged Council fault and he cannot change the outcome of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided misleading information to him as a landlord and compelled him to meet unreasonable or unlawful conditions when he applied for a licence for his rental property. Mr X complains this has caused him stress and to miss out on a £50 discount off the cost of the licence application fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint, his complaints to the Council and its responses. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision on the complaint and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has a rental property in the Council’s area and is required to obtain a licence for it under the Council’s selective licensing scheme. Mr X complains the Council provided misleading information about aspects of its scheme.

Complaint a - Accreditation

5. The Council offers a £50 discount off the cost of the licence for accredited landlords. Mr X complains the information on the Council’s website does not explain how a landlord can become accredited. Mr X says he assumed he would become accredited just by joining one of the landlord organisations listed on the Council website.
6. Mr X contacted the Council before submitting his application to clarify his understanding that an accredited landlord would receive a discount. The Council replied and told Mr X yes. Mr X did not ask the Council what being accredited meant.
7. Mr X submitted his application, but it was not until several months later that the Council contacted him to say he did not qualify for the discount as he was not accredited. Mr X considers the Council should have checked his accreditation at the point he queried the discount instead of waiting until he submitted his application. Mr X also complains that delay by the Council meant he could not rectify his non-accredited status and so obtain the discount.
8. In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council explained that the accreditation check is carried out when a licence is processed and there would have been no requirement for a check to have been carried out earlier. It also explained that merely being a member of a trade organisation does not equate to being accredited and it is for the licence applicant to check if they are accredited, by the organisation they are a member of, before submitting a licence application.

Complaint b – Electrical Installation Condition Report

9. Mr X also complained that the Council required him to obtain an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) within 28 days of the licence coming into force. Mr X says this was despite there being no legal requirement for landlords to obtain such reports.
10. In its Stage 2 complaint response to Mr X, the Council said it had been asking for EICRs under the Housing Act 2004 but acknowledged that recent case law had established that the Council is unable to ask for an EICR under these powers. The Council confirmed that this will therefore no longer be a requirement of the selective licensing process but an EICR may still be required if electrical safety concerns are identified during property inspections.

Assessment

11. Mr X acknowledges that he assumed his membership of a landlord scheme meant that he was accredited. The Council’s website stated that a landlord could become accredited with one of the organisations it listed. It did not say membership alone constituted accreditation. There was an onus on Mr X to check his assumption, either with the Council direct, or with the trade organisation he was a member of.
12. The Council explains accreditation is checked at the time of processing the application. Had this been done earlier, Mr X still would not have qualified for the discount as he was not accredited.
13. I do not consider therefore that Mr X was caused an injustice by his claim of Council fault in relation to these aspects of his complaint.
14. The Council acknowledges it legally did not have the power to require landlords to provide EICRs as a condition of them being licensed. However, I do not consider Mr X was affected by this, to a degree that would warrant our further involvement. Mr X did not pay for an EICR and was not directly threatened with any enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

15. My decision is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint as Mr X is not caused a significant injustice from it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman