Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint that the Council sent him and his wife threatening letters saying they run an unlicensed and sub-standard house in multiple occupation. This is because an investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome, nor can we achieve the outcome Mr Q would like.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that the London Borough of Hounslow sent him and his wife threatening letters saying they run an unlicensed and sub-standard house in multiple occupation (HMO). Mr Q said the Council failed to validate the complaint it received before writing to him and his wife and, as a result, alarmed and distressed them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I invited Mr Q to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. The Council received a complaint that the property Mr Q and his wife occupy was an unlicensed and sub-standard HMO. On 10 June the Council sent Mr Q and his wife three letters each, one of which included a notice requesting documents. The letters threatened them with legal action, financial penalties and fines.
5. On 16 June Mr Q complained to the Council. It responded on 19 June and explained

• officers do standard checks with Land Registry and council tax records when they receive a report about an HMO;
• in this case, the records showed Mr Q and his wife owned the property, but had a different contact address;
• the records also showed the property had a managing agent and two other occupants;
• officers were unable to visit the property because Government guidance during the Covid 19 outbreak advised them to suspend inspections;
• the Council would not normally have sent the letters without a visit to the property.

6. The Council upheld Mr Q’s complaint and apologised for the distress he and his family suffered. It said it would amend its records to show Mr Q’s property is a single family home. It also said it would review the case and assess any lessons it should take in a review of its processes.
7. Mr Q complained again on 22 June, saying the Council’s actions were a waste of public money. He said the Council should hold an internal investigation and take disciplinary measures to stop this happening again. He also wanted to know what legal measures would be taken against the person who complained about his property. The Council responded on 29 June saying it did not think its actions were a waste of money, nor would it take action against the complainant.
8. Mr Q brought his complaint to us. He said the Council’s actions had alarmed and distressed him and his wife. He also said the Council did nothing in terms of due diligence. Mr Q wants the Council to take action against the person who complained to it, rescind the letters it sent and issue a public apology. He also wants the Council to demote the officer who wrote the letters.

Analysis

9. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. I can understand why Mr Q and his wife were distressed and upset by the letters they received from the Council. I can also understand the difficulties the pandemic causes the Council when it is unable to visit and inspect possible HMOs. Nevertheless, its actions in this case do seem heavy-handed when it had no actual evidence Mr Q’s property was an HMO. However, the Council responded promptly to Mr Q’s complaint, upheld it, apologised for the distress he and his wife suffered, amended its records and said it would review its processes.
11. The Council has already taken the action we would normally expect in the circumstances. Mr Q would like the Council to issue a public apology and rescind the letters. We would not expect a public apology, particularly when the letters are not in the public domain. Nor would we expect the Council to rescind letters it sent when it received the complaint. It is clear from the complaint correspondence the Council will not take further action against Mr Q and his wife. So for these reasons an investigation by us is unlikely to result in a different outcome.
12. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Q seeks. We have no power to require the Council to take legal action against the complainant. Nor can we require the Council to demote or discipline its staff.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman