Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the term of a landlord licence issued to him by the Council in 2017. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr B had appeal rights to a statutory tribunal he could have made use of.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council acted unfairly in charging him £500 for a landlord licence which only lasted for 9 months. He seeks a pro rata refund from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided 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

5. In 2017 the Council required Mr B to obtain a property licence for a property he owns and rents out to tenants.
6. Mr B applied for a licence and paid the £500 fee. The Council sent him a draft licence which showed a 9-month term and invited his comments and any representations he wanted to make.
7. The Council did not hear from Mr B and it granted him the licence with the terms as set out in the draft. It also advised him of his right of appeal to the Residential Property Tribunal against the term of the licence.
8. The Council started a new licence scheme in 2018 under which licences can be granted for up to 5 years. Recently Mr B realised the length of the term he had been granted in 2017 and complained to the Council seeking a pro rata refund as he had paid £500 for a 9-month licence.
9. The Council responded by explaining it had not changed its Property Licensing scheme and that at the point of his original application, the Local Authority did not have another scheme where landlords could apply for a licence for a longer period.  It said the scheme in place at the time had ended in March 2018 and that all landlords had had to renew their licences then.
10. The Council pointed out that the draft licence had set out the term of the licence and that he had been invited to make representations but none had been received. It also explained the fee paid by landlords is for processing the application and administration and is not connected to the term of the licence. It confirmed it would not be making a refund.

Assessment

11. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
12. The restrictions highlighted at paragraphs 2 and 3 apply to Mr B’s complaint because he was notified of the length of the term of the licence in 2017 and, at the time, he could have appealed to the tribunal had he wanted to challenge the licence’s length.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr B had appeal rights to a statutory tribunal he could have made use of.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman