Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in matters relating to multiple issues with a property he lets to tenants. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Refuses to remove a flag against his property referencing and enforcement notice and refuses to apologise for this.
• Falsely stated it had notified his mortgage provider of a Planning Inspectorate decision.
• Refuses to refund £250 he paid as a deposit for a selective licence.
• Supported an illegal rogue landlord in subletting his property.
• Failed to deal with his complaint independently.
2. He wants the Council to :
• Provide an apology from two officers.
• Remove the land registry flag.
• Provide a copy of the policy showing its role in supporting rogue landlords.
• Refund the £250.
• Have his complaint reviewed by an independent person.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We cannot require the Council to remove the Enforcement Notice flag from the Land Registry. It confirms a note has been placed on file that the Notice has been complied with.
9. Mr X became aware of the subletting of his property, the Council’s knowledge of this and the refusal to refund part of the selective licence fee more than 12 months ago. These parts of the complaint are late. We have seen no reason why Mr X could not have complained to use sooner about these matters.
10. The Council has provided a copy of the letter sent to Mr X’s mortgage provider. Further investigation of this point would not lead to a different outcome.
11. Any apology would be made on behalf of the Council. We do not expect personal apologies from individual staff members.
12. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the complaint. The information provided shows the Council followed its published complaint procedure.
13. If Mr X believes the Council is withholding information which he is entitled to see, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the reasons given above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman