Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a house of multiple occupation next to Mr X’s property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with planning issues at the property. Mr X has also not been caused an injustice as a result of any issues arising from the background of the license holder.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allowed his neighbour to convert their property into a house of multiple occupation (HMO). Mr X says he has been distressed because of the noise from construction work and use of the property by multiple occupants.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A residential property can be changed from a single dwelling to an HMO for up to 6 households without the need for a planning application. That is what has happened in this case. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council not taking action against the owner of the property under planning law.
6. The HMO is licensed. Mr X is unhappy he was not given notice or consulted about the application for the license. There is no requirement for the Council to notify neighbouring properties about an application for an HMO license. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
7. Mr X says the owner of the property and named person on the license is guilty of criminal actions and has provided the Council with false information about their identity. The Council has advised Mr X that these are matters for the police and other agencies.
8. The suitability of the owner of the property to hold an HMO license does not have an impact on Mr X and so any actions by the Council have not caused him an injustice. This is because Mr X has not complained about any specific issues relating to the use of the property as an HMO other than noise associated with the every day use of a residential property and in any case there is nothing to prevent another person from licensing the property as an HMO. Therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with planning issues at the property. We will also not investigate the way the Council has dealt with HMO licensing at the property as any issues with the background of the person named on the license do not cause Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman