Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a privately rented property close to his property which has had a negative impact on his amenity. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to deal properly with a privately rented property which was allowed to operate as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) without the required licence. He wants the Council to prosecute the property owner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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:

• 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))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Over the years Mr X has suffered from the anti-social behaviour of tenants living at a privately rented property close to his and he has complained about these matters to the Council.
8. His recent complaint was addressed by the Council earlier this year and it upheld it. It said its intervention to date had been based on informal resolution of the complaints received and acknowledged that the Council’s Housing Standards Service had failed to identify the need for an HMO licence. It also acknowledged that an earlier view that the property had been exempt from HMO licencing requirements as it was being used for charitable/social housing appeared to be incorrect.
9. It confirmed an experienced enforcement officer was now monitoring activities at the property and that any breaches or infringement identified going forward would be dealt with using formal enforcement powers. It apologised that its service had not met its usual standards.
10. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to past events about which Mr X has known about for more than 12 months before complaining to us as we would reasonably have expected him to have complained sooner.
11. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr X wants the Council to prosecute the property owner. However, even if we investigated, this is not a recommendation we would make.
12. Given the Council’s recent consideration of matters, and its confirmation that future breaches and infringements will be dealt with by formal enforcement action, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
13. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he is not out of time in making his complaint to the Ombudsman. He has pointed out the earlier failings by the Council and says he wants the Council to prosecute the landlord, highlighting the fact that an adjoining council recently prosecuted a landlord.
14. Mr X says the requirement for a licence started in 2018 and that he suffered from the anti-social behaviour of previous tenants at the property. The time restriction applies to these events. The Council has already accepted its failings and upheld Mr X’s complaint. The decision whether to prosecute is one for the Council to make and not the Ombudsman and, regardless of the timing of events, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Fnal decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman