Summary: We will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s licensing and planning processes as there is not enough evidence of fault causing her significant injustice so an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Ms A says the Council misled her by granting a house in multiple occupation (HMO) licence, knowing she cannot gain the planning permission needed and the cost for a licence is expensive.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses provided by Ms A, inspected the Council’s website, consulted relevant legislation and considered Ms A’s response to our draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms A applied for and received an HMO license for a property she rents out to multiple occupants. She raised concerns about the cost of the license with the Council and asked it to explain the fee.
5. Ms A says she received an email from the Council’s planning department in November 2020 telling her that she was in breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council said her HMO property requires planning permission and it is unlikely to approve a planning application.
6. Ms A says the Council should not give HMO licences if it will not also grant planning permission and the licensing and planning departments should work together to prevent this happening. She believes the advice on the Council’s website that someone may also need planning permission when applying for an HMO licence is misleading.
7. The Council told Ms A the departments concerned have acted correctly and the onus is on the person wanting the HMO licence to ensure they have planning permission. The planning department and licensing department work under separate legislation.
8. Changing the use of a building from a dwelling house to a house in multiple occupation is ‘permitted development’, meaning planning permission is not always needed. However, in 2013 the Council removed permitted development rights for converting dwellings into houses in multiple occupation in much of its area.
9. The Council’s website says planning permission may be required and if refused then the HMO license fee cannot be refunded. The advice is accurate as not every case needs planning permission. It is the property owner or landlord’s responsibility to ensure they comply with planning law. The Council cannot say more than it has on its website because it must consider every planning application it receives on its merits and decide whether to grant or refuse planning permission. If refused, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.
10. It was Ms A’s responsibility to protect her position by checking whether planning permission was required or would be granted before seeking an HMO licence, or before buying or converting the property. The Ombudsman could not therefore hold the Council responsible for Ms A’s losses.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Ms A so the matter does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman