Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a property he owns and rents out. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council made a false allegation he was running an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and that it has an unlawful policy which can lead to the prosecution of innocent landlords. He says he was threatened with prosecution and seeks compensation and a change in the Council’s policy.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provide by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B owns a freehold property which he rents out to tenants using a letting agent.
5. In August 2018 the Council wrote to the owner/occupier at the tenanted property to explain it had received a complaint alleging the property was being used as an HMO and that a business was being run from it without permission. It further explained it had tried to visit the property to investigate but officers had been unable to gain access and that it wanted to carry out a visit.
6. In September, the Council sent Mr B a letter which stated that its records indicated he may be the landlord of a property “which is being occupied as an HMO and requires a licence.” The letter advised Mr B what to do if the letter had been received in error and warned of the possibility of prosecution if a licence was required but not obtained.
7. Two weeks later a visit to the property took place at which officers confirmed the property was not being occupied as an HMO and that no business was being run from it.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of matters, Mr B wrote two letters of complaint to the Council concerning its letter of 5 September and the threat made to prosecute him, and about its policy which he saw as one which prosecuted innocent, unsuspecting landlords, instead of tenants who might set up an HMO by sub-letting.
9. The Council’s Private Sector Housing Team wrote to Mr B to apologise if he had been distressed or inconvenienced by the wording of its letter of 5 September which it confirmed had now been changed to read “maybe” instead of “is” being occupied as an HMO. However, it declined his request for compensation.
10. Mr B also received communication from the Council about the complaint the Planning Department had received regarding HMO use and anti-social behaviour at the property and which had been investigated. It accepted the property was not being occupied as an HMO and said no anti-social behaviour was witnessed at the time of the visit. The Council said it had acted in good faith having received the complaint and that it had followed correct procedures when it had not been able to gain access to the property initially. Both complaints were closed by the Council in October as it received no request to escalate them to Stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
11. In November 2018 and May 2019, the Council sent Mr B a declaration form for him to sign as owner of the rented property which would confirm it was not licensable. Mr B declined to complete it and the Council confirmed to him that he had no legal obligation to do so.
12. At the end of May 2019, Mr B sent the Council his view, as he had previously set out in his complaints from 2018, that its policy should be changed to make the tenant and not the landlord the most appropriate person to be licenced for an HMO when the landlord is not operating an HMO or in control of the property.
13. The Council advised Mr B is would pass on his views to its Legal Team for comment and let him know when a response was received. Mr B has not heard further on this point.
14. The Council has advised that it regards Mr B’s complaints as “out of time” for escalation but that if he contacts the Chief Executive’s office, explaining which areas of his complaints he regards as unresolved, the Council may consider escalation to Stage 2.

Assessment

15. The Council acted properly in writing to the owner/occupier and then to Mr B when its officers had been unable to gain access to the property. Its letter of 5 September indicated the possible action Mr B might need to take to obtain a licence for an HMO property. In response to Mr B’s complaint, it has slightly amended the wording of the standard letter to make clearer that the property in question maybe occupied as an HMO which would require a licence. This change, and its apology for any distress caused to him, is an adequate response to this issue.
16. Mr B disagrees with my view. He highlights what might have happened to him had a prosecution been taken against him and the time and trouble he took in communicating with the Council about the matter. While I note what Mr B says, the events which he says could have happened did not occur and the time and trouble caused to him is not at a level at which I consider a compensation payment should be sought.
17. Mr B has also been concerned about the legality of the Council’s policy and the possible prosecution of innocent landlords who have no knowledge their property is being used as an HMO. While I note the Council has not passed on any response from its Legal Team to Mr B, this is not a matter we will investigate when there has been no significant injustice caused to Mr B. It is open to Mr B to contact the Council directly to request a Stage 2 response to his complaints from September 2018 if he wishes to pursue matters.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman