Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a House in Multiple Occupation property licence. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. And any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council delayed and failed to inspect his property or provide a service when he applied for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence. He says the Council’s action is unlawful according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. He seeks a refund.

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)).

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for an HMO licence in January 2025. He paid the fee of £890.
6. In May 2025 Mr X’s tenants left and so a licence was no longer required.
7. Mr X complained that Council delayed and failed to inspect the property. He said in four and a half months the Council had not provided any service and visited the wrong property after the tenants left. It was not possible to licence it now. He said the Council breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaints. It said:
• It arranged the inspection with the agent and met them at the property. It then found the property was not the correct one. This was not a service failure in the Council’s view. It said it could visit and complete the application or Mr X could provide evidence the property did not require a licence.
• It ideally aimed to determine HMO applications within three months. It did not consider the delay in this case was unreasonable.
• The fee was not refundable once processing started as set out in its policy. The administrative costs started from the point of application. It had carried out processing work on the application, validating documents, checking ownership, and previous non compliance.
• the Consumer Rights Act did not apply to HMO licensing.
9. The HMO licence fee is not refundable once the application is made and processing starts according to the Council’s policy. Administrative costs were already incurred as the application was registered and validated. There is not enough evidence of fault here to warrant investigation.
10. The Council did not visit the property before the tenants left. However, the Council is not required to refund the fee due to not completing an inspection. I do not consider the injustice due to the delay and missed inspection is significant enough to justify investigation.
11. Mr X says the Council failed to adhere to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We cannot decide if the Council breached the Act. Only a court can do that. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise the matter in court as this is the appropriate body to consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation and the injustice is not significant enough. Mr X can raise Consumer Rights matters in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman