Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about property licencing and planning enforcement. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council have not taken action against his landlord for not having House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence or planning permission. Mr X also complains of poor complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X rents a flat in a building which has been converted into four self‑contained studio flats. Mr X complains the Council has not required his landlord to obtain an HMO licence for the property. He says the property is an HMO because of the way it was converted.
7. A converted building of self‑contained flats that does not meet building regulation standards can be a HMO, but it does not require a mandatory HMO licence.
8. The Council operates both an additional licensing scheme and a selective licensing scheme. I have reviewed these schemes. The property does not require a licence under the additional licencing scheme because it meets the exemption criteria. The property also does not require licencing under the selective licencing scheme because it is outside the area the scheme operates in.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council advising Mr X that the property does not require an HMO licence. Mandatory, additional, and selective licensing do not apply in this case, and the Council was entitled to reach that conclusion.
10. Mr X also says the property did not have planning permission to be converted into separate flats.
11. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
12. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against planning enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was made. In this case, the Council inspected the property and decided the use had become established and that formal enforcement action would not be proportionate. I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached that decision.
13. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman