Great Yarmouth Borough Council (18 013 151)

Category : Environment and regulation > Licensing

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 14 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered the designation of a selective licensing scheme for privately rented properties. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr B is a private sector landlord. He is a representative of an association which represents local landlords. He complains in his own right and on behalf of the association about the way the Council has considered the designation of a selective licensing scheme for privately rented properties. He also complains about the appointment of the service delivery company.
  2. The scheme will mean that Mr B will have to pay £6,500 over five years to license his properties. He considers the scheme will not address the problems in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 a council’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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the complaint and spoke to Mr B. I asked the Council for its comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

  1. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can introduce selective licensing of privately rented homes to address problems in their area, or any part of them, caused by low housing demand and/or significant anti-social behaviour. The Government has produced guidance on the introduction of selective licensing. This says that residents, landlords and tenants (and any other person likely to be affected by the selective licensing designation) must be consulted prior to the introduction of a licensing scheme. Landlords who rent out properties in an area that is subject to selective licensing are required to obtain a licence from the local authority for each of their properties.

What happened

  1. The Council started to consider an area for selective licensing scheme and consulted on the proposal over the summer of 2018. The scheme came into effect in January 2019.
  2. The Council appointed a delivery partner, Company X. Mr B says that a director of company X used to be an employee of the landlord’s association who were a supporter of the proposal.

The issues - Consultation

  1. Mr B considered the consultation done by the Council was not adequate. He did not consider the Council had been done to reach landlords and tenants. He considered this was supported by the fact that only one tenant responded.
  2. The consultation period lasted for ten weeks. Details were on the Council’s website. Three landlord associations were directly consulted as was the member of parliament and three local community groups. There was a landlord consultation event and two drop-in sessions. The Council consulted various stakeholders directly.
  3. There is no set process for how consultation should be carried out – it is for the Council decide what is appropriate. There is no obvious flaw in what the Council did here and I cannot say the Council should have done more or missed some obvious aspect of consultation that it should have carried out.

Reporting of the comments made

  1. Mr B considered the Council had not reported the comments made accurately. The Council’s report on the consultation refers in detail to the responses and I have seen no error in that reporting.
  2. In the summing up of the consultation the report concluded there was a significant and broad cross-section of residents, business people, workers, and partner agencies which supported the selective licensing designation. In responding to my enquiries the Council said that some stakeholders instead of responding formally to the consultation said positive things, or wrote them on social media. It said the majority of respondents to the consultation were landlords or letting agents who were not in favour and typically those in favour or unconcerned about a proposal will not respond. I accept this point but I do not consider it was a fair summing up to say there was a significant and broad cross-section in support – the Council has not provided any evidence to support that statement. But I do not consider this poorly drafted phrase is a significant point in terms of the decision making. The report was detailed and provided all the information on the consultation responses. I consider it was clear to the decision makers what the consultation results were and the decision has not been affected by the poorly worded comment.

Anti-social behaviour

  1. Mr B considered it was wrong for weight to be given anti-social behaviour (ASB) as it was concentrated on the sea-front where there are other attractions and was not connected to privately rented property.
  2. The Council said the police had contacted the Council because of their concern about the pronounced crime and ASB in the area which their data linked to the private rented sector. The Council’s own records showed that this was not connected to houses in multiple occupation but the wider private rented sector around them. The police analysts worked with the Council’s data analysts who were confident with there was a link between crime and ASB with the private rented sector.
  3. I have no grounds to question the Council’s comments on this point. The Council has undertaken appropriate research and based its conclusions on the outcomes of that research.

Company X

  1. Mr B was concerned about the involvement of company X with a landlord association who supported the scheme. When the Council consulted on the scheme it was on the basis that it would work with a partner agency to deliver the scheme. When the Council adopted the scheme it appointed company X as the delivery partner. A person who worked for company X had provided consultancy services for the landlord association. They ended their involvement with the landlord association before the scheme was adopted by the Council.
  2. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this. The Council has said that before deciding to work with company X it carried out appropriate checks. I recognise Mr B may be concerned about the role of the landlord association but that is not something the Council had any control over or otherwise calls into question the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of the designation of a selective licensing scheme for privately rented properties.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings