Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his licence application for a house of multiple occupancy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s communication with Mr X to justify our involvement. In addition, Mr X has appealed the Council’s decision not to give him a licence to tribunal. If he believes the Council’s actions has affected its decision making, it is appropriate for him to raise his concerns there.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s communication with his after he applied for a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) licence. He said the Council did not respond to his emails until after he complained. He said it then failed to reconsider its compliance check within five working days of its stage one complaint response, despite stating it would. Me X wants the Council to accept its failings and financially compensate him.

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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not respond to emails about the HMO licence until after he complained. The Council completed a compliance check at the beginning of July. It provided Mr X the outcome of this mid-July. Mr X emailed the Council with questions around the compliance check; he complained the same month.
8. We would not consider the period between Mr X emailing the Council and his complaint a significant delay. The Council then responded to his questions with ten working days of his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. Additionally, the Council has decided not to issue Mr X an HMO licence. Mr X is appealing its decision to the tribunal. If Mr X feels that any miscommunication from the Council has affected the outcome of its licensing decision, it is appropriate for him to raise it with the tribunal.
10. Mr X also complained the Council incorrectly told him it would reconsider its compliance check within five working days of its stage one complaint response. In its final complaint response, the Council apologised for any misunderstanding caused by its first stage response. It explained it would reconsider the compliance check within five working-days of receiving additional evidence from Mr X. The Council apologised for the lack of clarity.
11. We will not investigate this further. I am satisfied the Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy any uncertainty caused. Any injustice claimed by Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and Mr X is appealing the substantive matter around the Council’s licensing decision to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman