Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s application system software for selective licencing for private landlords. He says the system is not fit for purpose and that it could be open to abuse and money laundering by staff. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any personal injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a private landlord and he complained about the Council’s online system for applying for a licence under its selective licensing scheme. He says it showed transactions which he had not made and that he could not tell if this was evidence of money laundering activity by staff creating false payments. He also complained that when he brought the concerns to the attention of local councillors, they informed the licensing department rather than maintaining confidentiality.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the Council’s application system for selective licences is difficult to use and his account showed transactions which he had not carried out and which suggested cash payments may have been shared to other accounts, possibly involving money laundering. He owns multiple properties and says he could not reconcile the payments on the account history with those indicated on the Council’s system.
5. He complained to a local councillor who informed the licensing department of his concerns. The Council carried out an audit of the system and looked at the transactions on Mr X’s account which he was concerned about. It explained each transaction to him in response and says the account reflects different payment methods he used which resulted in adjustments having to be made manually which represented the cash payments.
6. The Council accepted that the payment account is difficult to understand but that it is mainly for its own accounting records and that the balances which are issued to the payees are correct. Without the adjustments the system would automatically generate reminders for incorrect due amounts to the licencees.
7. Mr X also complained about the unhelpful layout of the online application which he says does not allow an applicant to move between questions or pages. The Council says the format is driven by several legal requirements and that there are declarations which are required from the applicant. Any editing of answers requires the declarations to be repeated.

8. Analysis
9. Mr X made his concerns known to the Council and it carried out an audit of the system. It gave him an explanation of the account transactions and how his payments had been accounted for. There is no evidence that his payments were lost or misfiled, even though he found it difficult to understand what had taken place.
10. The Council has explained the reasons for the complex format of its applications and that this is the same system used by other councils which was selected from a Government-approved framework.
11. The councillor to whom he made his concerns known passed the information to the relevant department because he had no authority to carry out an audit of the system.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any personal injustice cause to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman