Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a House in Multiple Occupation Licence issued by the Council. Ms X had a right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal about this issue, and it would be reasonable to expect her to have used it. We will not investigate the remainder of Ms X’s complaint about payment for the licence, or the Council failing to give advice about planning permission. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence issued by the Council, specifically the shorter length of time it was issued for.
2. Ms X also complained she may have overpaid for the licence, and that the Council did not advise her about the planning permission she needed.
3. Ms X said the shorter licence period would lead to financial loss, as she would have to re-apply in 12 months. Ms X wanted the Council to issue a licence for five years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms X complained about a HMO licence. She said the Council issued the licence for a shorter period than requested.
10. The Housing Act 2004 says a HMO licence holder can appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) about the conditions of the licence, within 28 days of the date the Council decided to grant it. This includes the length of time it has been issued for.
11. It would be reasonable for Ms X to have used this right because it is set out in law, and the Tribunal can tell the Council to grant the licence on different terms. The Ombudsman does not have this power.
12. As outlined in paragraph five, we cannot investigate complaints where a person has a right of appeal to a Tribunal and where we see it reasonable for a person to have used it. For this reason, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint.
13. For the remainder of Ms X’s complaint, as summarised at paragraph two, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome and therefore we will not investigate.
14. The Council explained in its response, it did not have a duty to provide the advice about planning permission Ms X complains about. However, it acknowledges how it could have made the requirement for planning permission clearer and said it had taken learning from Ms X’s complaint.
15. The Council also reviewed Ms X’s case, confirmed she had not overpaid and explained why it could not transfer fees from a previous licence to her HMO licence application.
16. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome here. The Council has set out its response to Ms X’s complaint with reasonable explanations and acknowledged where it could have improved its service. We would not achieve anything further by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal and further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman