Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his concerns of staff misconduct. Most of the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault in recent matters to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to investigate his concerns about staff misconduct and harassment properly. He said it did not allocate an impartial investigating officer and that’s its complaint responses were dismissive, procedurally flawed and misleading.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions had caused significant distress, impacted his mental health and affected his ability to function as landlord. He wants an apology from the Council, for it to review how it handles complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and financial compensation from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X initially complained to the Council at the end of 2023 about how it had managed the renewal of his House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) licence. He said the Officer responsible for the renewal had failed to attend an agreed inspection and stated he was an ‘unfit and improper person’ to hold the licence.
9. The Council issued a final response to Mr X’s complaint in February 2024. It confirmed it had issued Mr X’s HMO licence and directed Mr X to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
10. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council in January 2025. In this he complained:
• about a criminal investigation the Council had completed into his actions as a landlord during 2022 and 2023;
• that the Council had failed to add his HMO licence to the public register until the start of 2025 despite issuing it the previous year, and
• the Council Officer involved in his 2023 complaint had visited his property in September 2024 under a false name and pretences.
11. The Council allocated a relevant manager to respond to the complaint. Mr X objected, and the Council allocated a different Head of Service. Mr X subsequently complained this person did not have the relevant expertise. The Council disagreed and confirmed it had allocated the complaint in line with its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint to justify investigation.
12. In its complaint response, the Council set out its reasons for the criminal investigation and apologised for any administrative errors in its communication. It also apologised for not updating the HMO public register sooner and said it had rectified as soon as it had been brought to its attention.
13. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until June 2025, therefore, any complaint about the Council’s actions before June 2024 are late. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. The Council has apologised and updated the HOM public register, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
14. The Council said it attended Mr X’s property in September following a report of pest nuisance from a tenant. It explained it was duty bound to do that. It explained the visiting Officer had information that indicated the property was an unlicensed HMO, so decided to investigate this at the same time. It stated the Officer had not attempted to hide their identity from Mr X but had changed their surname.
15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s September 2024 visit further. The Council has confirmed the reason for the visit; it has explained it has a duty to follow up reports from tenants. It also has a statutory responsibility to ensure HMOs are licenced. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because most of it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault in recent matters to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman