Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a building regularisation application for a House in Multiple Occupation. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not properly handle his regularisation application for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). He says the Council wrongly said the HMO was unlawful. Mr X said this caused financial loss, distress and reputational damage. Mr X wants the Council to issue a new certificate reflecting HMO status, apologise to him and pay him compensation. He further wants the Council to update its process to make it easier to declare the application relates to a HMO.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))

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 initially used a registered building control approver for the work to his property. A registered approver is a private body or individual that undertakes building control functions. The registered approver cancelled the initial notice for Mr X’s property because they said the property did not comply with building regulations and needed enforcement action from the Council. The registered approver was not acting for the Council and we will therefore not consider concerns about the approver’s actions.
7. The Council took over the case and sent Mr X an enforcement notice. The Council advised Mr X how he could ensure compliance with building regulations. It told Mr X that unauthorised works needed to be regularised.
8. Mr X then sent a regularisation application to the Council but the application did not specify it related to a HMO. This meant the Council did not inspect the property’s suitability for use as a HMO.
9. Mr X is unhappy the regularisation certificate said “excludes the use of HMO” even though he had been transparent about the use of the property since the start of his application.
10. I understand the HMO use was mentioned in Mr X’s first application. But it was for Mr X to include the work he wanted inspected by the Council as part of the building regulation application. I understand Mr X did seek the necessary planning consent and property license to use the building as a HMO, but building regulation approval is also needed. I am satisfied the Council has given Mr X advice about what he needs to do to comply with building regulations.
11. In his complaint to the Council, Mr X complained about a building control officer’s conduct and Mr X felt he had been discriminated against. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act or discriminated against someone as this can only be done by the courts.
12. The Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns that he was discriminated against and found no evidence of discrimination. I am satisfied the Council properly considered this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman