Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a landlord accreditation licence. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of his application for a landlord accreditation licence. This licence provides landlords with a five-year landlord licence at a lower cost.

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,
• there is a more suitable body better placed to investigate.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

The Council’s response

5. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns. It says Mr X does not meet the eligibility criteria for the scheme.
6. The Council reports inspections of Mr X’s property, undertaken in June and July 2024, found several breaches of housing regulations including fire safety measures. These breach the eligibility criteria for the scheme in question.

7. The Council acknowledges Mr X’s concerns about a difficult tenant who Mr X says vandalised his property including his fire safety controls. The Council says it is important to have effective landlord management practice to address such scenarios.
8. The Council advises that Mr X can apply again to the scheme from April 2026.

My decision

9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. We will not investigate. In Mr X’s case, the Council’s decision appears to be based on evidence arising from different property inspections. In these circumstances there is insufficient evidence of the Council acting with fault which would warrant an investigation.
11. Mr X also says due process was not followed and the Council did not provide enough information to his legal representatives. I will not start an investigation as I consider these issues to be intertwined with Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the outcome.
12. Provided the Council’s decisions were taken in a reasonable manner, after visiting the property in question, and reviewed by senior officers, as happened in this case via the complaints process, the Ombudsman would not criticise the professional judgement of officers.
13. Further, if Mr X considers his legal representatives were not provided with enough information by the Council, they can take this issue to the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO). The ICO is best placed to consider if the Council has adhered to its information rights obligations.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a landlord accreditation scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman