Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council’s licence application process, or the Council’s complaint handling. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council took nine months to consider his application for a selective licence. Mr X also complained the Council caused delays in accepting and responding to his stage two complaint.
2. Mr X said this caused him a financial loss and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about delays in his application for a selective licence. Mr X submitted his application in April 2024, and the Council granted it in January 2025. Mr X said he could not rent his property in the meantime.
7. In its complaint response the Council apologised and told Mr X they are dealing with a backlog of cases. It also told Mr X it has recruited additional staff to help with clearing the backlog.
8. The Council also told Mr X when it receives a selective licence application, the property is deemed as licenced in the interim. This means Mr X could have rented out the property during the application process, although Mr X said he had reservations about doing this.
9. When escalating his complaint to stage two, the Council delayed in acknowledging and responding to it. When it responded in May 2025 it apologised and said this was due to an administrative error.
10. While Mr X’s claimed injustice of financial loss and stress is noted, I do not consider this to be a significant injustice in which he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman