Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure that a neighbouring rented property complies with licensing requirements for waste collection and storage. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure that the landlord of a neighbouring property complies with the House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence. She says storage and waste collection has been inside the property and now the Council has required bins to be stored on the footway this presents a hazard to pedestrians and a fire risk to her property.

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.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X lives next to a property which is let as a HMO and licensed by the Council. She says that there is no adequate provision of storage for waste bins within the property or at the rear and tenants were storing bins within the premises which she says is a fire hazard which would affect her property. She says the issue is a breach of the licensing requirements.
6. The Council required the owners to place bins for waste collection on the highway in front of the premises so that they are available for waste collection. Miss X says this presents a hazard for pedestrians and is still a fire risk.
7. The Council told her that the pavement is sufficiently wide for bin storage and the highway authority has given permission for the waste to be stored and collected from the footway. There is no breach of the licensing requirements.
8. The Council has powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to specify where waste receptacles should be placed for collection. In this case the Council has specified the footway and the Council is satisfied that this does not present a hazard as the footway is sufficiently wide for easy pedestrian access.
9. Miss X also complained about cars parking on double yellow lines outside the premises and her property. This is not related to the licensing conditions and affects other properties in the proximity of a local shop. The Council advised her to contact the Police if her access is obstructed.
10. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

The Council has investigated the complaints about licensing conditions and no breaches have been identified. The unrelated issue of parking offences is not related to the HMO licence and does not cause sufficient personal injustice to Miss X which we would warrant further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure that a neighbouring rented property complies with licensing requirements for waste collection and storage. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman