Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with an unlicensed house in multiple occupation or a breach of planning control at the property next door to it. Nor will we investigate Mr Q’s complaint that the Council requires him to use a single point of contact about these matters. His injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation by us. And we cannot achieve the outcome he would like.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained about the actions of Wolverhampton City Council. He said the Council

• failed to do anything about an unlicensed and problematic house in multiple occupation (HMO);
• failed to take enforcement action over a breach of planning control at the property next to the HMO; and
• has restricted him to a single point of contact about these matters because of the frequency and content of his emails.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. And I considered Mr Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr Q witnessed an assault at an HMO. He also saw that a garage door at the HMO had been bricked up, and a new extension at the neighbouring property was too big.
5. Mr Q does not live in the same road as the two properties he complains of, but he lives nearby. He spoke to residents and then complained to the Council. He then arranged meetings between residents and councillors, and later submitted a petition.
6. The Council investigated Mr Q’s concerns.
7. The Council would not tell Mr Q the outcome of its investigations at the HMO because of data protection issues. It said bricking up the garage was not development and so was not subject to planning control. The Council accepted the neighbouring property’s extension was too big. But it said it had decided not to take enforcement action.
8. Mr Q was not happy with the Council’s response and continued to email. The Council decided the frequency of Mr Q’s contact was unreasonable, and the content of some of his emails was intimidatory. It restricted his contact about the HMO and neighbouring property to a single point of contact. It did not restrict his contact regarding unrelated matters.
9. Mr Q remains unhappy with the Council’s response to his concerns. He accepts that he contacted a lot of officers but said he was not abusive. Mr Q believes the Council should disqualify the owner from operating HMOs. And he said the extension should be taken down and the garage returned to its original use.
10. In his response to the draft of this decision, Mr Q gave more information about the impact of the Council’s alleged fault on residents of the HMO and other nearby residents. He reiterated that he was not abusive in his emails with officers and that he remained unhappy with his restricted contact.

Analysis

11. Mr Q is concerned about what has happened at the HMO and the neighbouring property. I understand he has concerns. However, although he lives nearby, he has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s alleged fault. The information Mr Q provided shows that residents of the HMO and other residents have been more affected. And he is not personally affected by the HMO’s garage or the neighbouring property’s extension.
12. Mr Q is unhappy the Council has restricted his contact about the HMO and neighbouring property. I recognise the Council has restricted him to a single point of contact. But it has not stopped his contact completely. And there is no restriction on his contact about unrelated matters. So he has suffered little injustice because of the Council’s decision.
13. In summary, therefore, Mr Q has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the fault he alleges. In any event, he would like the Council to disqualify the HMO owner, get the extension taken down, and the garage returned to its original use. We cannot achieve this outcome for Mr Q. So, for these reasons, we will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman