Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a council officer referred the complainant’s property to planning enforcement for investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the officer dealing with his House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) license application referred his property to planning enforcement for investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals against a about planning enforcement notices.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• in the absence of any independent evidence or witnesses, we are unlikely to be able to establish exactly what was said during the telephone conversation between Mr X and the officer.
• an email from Mr X to the officer on 12 August 2025 said that if his HMO license application was unsuccessful then he would put the property on a short-term let website instead. And following a telephone call with Mr X on 6 October 2025, the officer sent him a summary of the conversation which noted he said the property had been on the letting website for 2 years.
• whilst I acknowledge Mr X disputes the claim that his property had been/was being used for short term lets, if the Council had concerns that a breach of planning control may be occurring, it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide to commence an investigation. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against that decision, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
8. Furthermore, if the Council decides to serve a planning enforcement notice on Mr X in the future, he will have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. It seems reasonable to expect Mr X to use that right of appeal, so the Ombudsman would not investigate for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman