Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrong to list him on the rogue landlord and agent checker register. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council deliberately misrepresented the condition of a property he rents out to tenants specifically to impose a significant financial penalty and to include his name on the Greater London Authority’s Rogue Landlord and Agent Checker register. He wants the Council to remove his name from the list.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to the part of Mr X’s complaint which concerns his claim the Council deliberately misrepresented the condition of his property and the financial penalty he had to pay. This is because he appealed to the tribunal about this and so the matter falls outside our jurisdiction and cannot be investigated. We have no discretion here.
9. With regard to the Council’s decision to place his name on the register, we cannot review the merits of this decision even though Mr X may strongly disagree with it. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot question a decision a council has made if it followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. In this case, the Council had regard to the circumstances of Mr X’s case because it agreed to just put his name on the private register and not the public register and that it would be on there for two instead of six years. While I note Mr X believes he should not be on the list, the Council is of the view that some record, with restricted access, is appropriate given he operated for a time without the required HMO licence.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says that by adding his name to the register the Council it broke the agreement that had been reached at the tribunal. He says that having reached agreement on the amount of his fine, the parties signed a mutually binding agreement that no further action would be taken. However, if he believes the Council has breached the agreement reached at the tribunal then he should contact this body.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman