Summary: Mr X complained about the Council requiring him to obtain a licence for his rented property and the imposition of a civil penalty for his failure to do so. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to challenge the penalty at the First-Tier Tribunal which is the proper body to consider licensing penalties.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of its requirement for him to obtain a licence under the selective licensing scheme for rented property. He says it was insensitive to his personal family circumstances and that it served him with a civil penalty fine of £5,250 which was unreasonable and disproportionate.

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. The First-Tier Tribunal (Residential Property) is part of HM Courts and Justice Service and considers appeals against licensing penalties.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X received a civil penalty for failing to licence a rented property which he owns. The Council’s selective licensing scheme has covered the area where the property is since 2016 and he has been reminded by the Council of the requirement for a licence since then with six reminders and an application pack. Mr X previously held a licence under an earlier selective licensing scheme which ended in 2014.
6. The Council sent an interview form under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for him to complete in 2020 due to the pandemic restrictions on personal interviews. Mr X says he has had family crises which affected his ability to comply with the licensing requirements. The Council says he submitted an incomplete application in 2016 which, with his previous licence indicates he was aware of the requirements.
7. Mr X returned the PACE form after 30 days and the Council decided to impose a civil penalty on him in preference to a criminal prosecution as part of its licensing policy. The property remained tenanted and unlicensed when it served the penalty notice in March 2020. The notice clearly explained Mr X’s right to appeal the penalty to the First-Tier tribunal within 28 days.
8. The Ombudsman will jot investigate a complaint about a matter which carries a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint because Mr X has not provided any good reasons why he did not appeal the penalty.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to challenge the penalty at the First-Tier Tribunal which is the proper body to consider licensing penalties.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman