Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s landlord licensing scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Secretary of State approved the scheme.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s landlord licensing scheme. For example, he says the Council did not advertise the scheme which meant he lost the chance to pay at the ‘early bird’ rate. He also disagrees with the terms of the scheme and doubts a scheme is needed in the area where he owns a property.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the complaint responses. I considered email exchanges between Mr X and the Council. I also considered the terms of the scheme and obtained evidence from the Council that it advertised the scheme. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Landlord licensing scheme

5. The Secretary of State approved a landlord licensing scheme starting in October 2018. A discounted fee of £250 was available to landlords who applied for a licence before 31 December 2018. The fee is non-refundable and covers the licence for five years. A condition of the licence is that the landlord must be a member of a recognised landlord accreditation scheme.

What happened

6. Mr X is a landlord. He applied for the landlord licence in March 2019. He complained about not being offered the discounted rate. He said the Council had failed to advertise the scheme so it was unfair not to offer the reduced rate. He said that only a couple of landlords from his area have applied for a licence which proves the Council did not advertise the scheme properly.
7. Mr X also said there was no need for licensing in the area where he owns a property and he disagreed with the requirement to pay for a licence for five years with no refund. He was also unhappy with the need to get register with a landlord body.
8. In response the Council explained that it had made a proposal for a licensing scheme to the Secretary of State and this was approved in May 2018. It explained there had been two public consultations and the scheme was advertised by public notices, on its website and in the press, via letting agents and in the free paper which is sent to every property in the borough. It declined to allow Mr X to pay at the reduced rate because he applied after December 2018. The Council explained that the fee is for a five year licence and, apart from in a limited number of circumstances, there are no refunds. It said that it would cost too much to administer refunds and it was trying to keep the fee as low as possible. The Council explained that landlord accreditation was part of the drive to improve standards.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
10. The Council made a proposal to the Secretary of State to introduce a licensing scheme. The proposal included the reasons why the Council thought a scheme was necessary and conditions of the scheme. The Secretary of State approved the proposal. Mr X disagrees a scheme is needed in the area where he owns a property and he disagrees with some aspects of the scheme. However, it is not fault for the Council to implement a scheme approved by the Secretary of State and it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to comment on a scheme approved by the Secretary of State.
11. Mr X says he should be able to pay for his licence at the reduced rate. However, this was only available to people who applied before 31 December 2018 and he applied in 2019. Mr X says the Council did not properly advertise the scheme so he missed the discounted period. However, there were public consultations and the scheme was advertised on the website and in newspapers sent to every property in the borough. There was no reason for Mr X’s area to get enhanced publicity. It may be that few landlords from Mr X’s area have applied but that does not mean the publicity was poor. It is hard to see what more the Council could have done to publicise the scheme. It is unfortunate that Mr X was unaware until after the discounted period had ended but there is nothing to suggest this was due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the scheme has been approved by the Secretary of State.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman