Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation process for the introduction of a selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector in its area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the consultation process for the introduction of a selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector in its area and about the report following the consultation. He says the requirements of the relevant government guidance were not met, that the issues he raised and answers to his questions were not part of the report and that the Council should carry out a new consultation process.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X sent detailed comments with questions to the Council in response to consultation it carried out about the introduction of a selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector in its area.
6. In response to his complaint about its handling of these matters and particularly its failure to respond to all the points he had raised, the Council explained that, despite his reading of the relevant government guidance, it was not obliged to respond to every point he had made or to answer all his questions. It explained it would not be proportionate to do so. It did not accept his view that the consultation was flawed and said it would not carry out the consultation or report again.
7. While Mr X may be disappointed he did not get a detailed response to each point he had made, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council affected the outcome of the consultation. Given the number of responses of over 1,000 to the consultation, the Council reasonably used key themes and summaries.
8. It told Mr X that it was open to him to raise a Freedom of Information request in relation to the questions he had asked and any dissatisfaction he may have with the Council’s response to such a request is a matter best addressed by the Information Commissioner rather than the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman