Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not suspend recovery action while the complainant was appealing to the tribunal about a penalty in relation to landlord licensing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council continued to take recovery action even though he had provided proof he had appealed to the tribunal. Mr X says the Council has not provided evidence of its policy and has breached the Human Rights Act. Mr X wants the Council to admit its mistake, review its policy and explain how many other people have been affected.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the legislation. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is a landlord. He has properties in an area where there is a landlord licensing scheme. The Council issued two financial penalties for an alleged breach of the scheme. It also issued a notice of proposed county court action to recover the fines.
5. Mr X appealed against the penalties to the tribunal. He then complained to the Council that it sent notices of proposed court action even though he had demonstrated he had appealed to the tribunal. Mr X said it was stressful to receive a threat of court action. He wanted the Council to provide the policy its actions were based on.
6. The Council explained it continues with recovery action until it receives proof of a properly lodged an appeal. It said it suspended recovery action after it received evidence the tribunal had received a properly made appeal.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law allows councils to issue a penalty for breaches of the landlord licensing scheme and says the penalty can be enforced in court. The law provides the landlord with appeal rights to the tribunal and says the penalty is suspended if the landlord appeals. Government guidance explains the landlord must pay a fee when appealing to the tribunal and, on receipt of an appeal, the tribunal will check to make sure it is complete and then send an acknowledgement of the appeal. Evidence someone has sent an appeal to the tribunal is not the same as the tribunal confirming it has received a complete appeal.
8. The Council’s actions were based on the legislation and government guidance so there is insufficient evidence of fault to require an investigation. The Council could have explained in more detail that its actions were based on the law and guidance, but this is not an issue that warrants an investigation.
9. Mr X complained the Council breached the Human Rights Act, but our view is that the Human Rights Act is not relevant to the issues raised in this complaint.
10. There is also insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation. The Council did not start legal action but gave notice of proposed action. I appreciate Mr X found this stressful, but he knew he had appealed so it was unlikely court action would commence. In addition, the Council suspended recovery action once it received the official notification of the appeal which was a few days after Mr X made his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman