Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a selective licensing scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to introduce a selective licensing scheme. He says this scheme will interfere with his life as he is a private landlord in the affected area. He wants the Council to suspend the scheme until it addresses his concerns and considers alternative options.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered information about the Council’s selective licensing scheme consultation, available on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A selective licensing scheme requires all private landlords to apply for a licence for any property they rent out in a specified area.
7. Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 sets out requirements for local authorities before introducing a selective licensing scheme. For example, there must be specified issues in the relevant area, like significant anti-social behaviour. The local authority must also consider alternatives to the scheme, and take reasonable steps to consult people the scheme would affect. It should run this consultation for at least 10 weeks, under the Selective Licensing General Approval 2024.
8. Mr Y raises several concerns about the Council’s consultation and decision-making process. He says it arranged meetings during standard working hours which excluded working landlords like him. He says the Council ignored most written respondents’ concerns opposing the scheme, and its decision-making was not based on factual evidence. He also says the Council has not fully considered alternative options.
9. In its response to Mr Y’s complaint, the Council signposted him to the information on its website about its consultation and decision. The Council’s consultation report says it decided to consult based on sources including the 2021 census and housing stock condition database. It said it ran the consultation for 10 weeks and advertised it through different channels targeting affected tenants and landlords. The Council summarised the written and verbal responses it received. It also listed alternatives to the scheme and explained why it did not consider these suitable.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council recorded its decision-making at each stage of the process. It ran the consultation for the required time and took steps to engage relevant stakeholders. It considered the responses it received and alternatives to selective licensing. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this matter to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman