Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove permitted development rights for Houses in Multiple Occupation. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was not made aware of a new Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and did not register his property before the deadline. Mr X says he will have to formalise his property as an HMO if he wants to sell his property and it will cost him to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to properly advertise a new Article 4 direction which removed permitted development rights for HMOs. This meant that any residential property being converted from a single dwelling to an HMO would require planning permission. Mr X says he hopes to sell his property and will now need to formalise his property’s use as an HMO, which will cost him £462 for a full planning application fee.
6. The Council says it did not require landlords to declare their properties to the Council before the Article 4 direction came into force in June 2020, instead it encouraged them to do so. In addition, the Council says there is no requirement for landlords to submit an application for a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm the established HMO use of a property, this is something HMO owners could choose to do. Mr X is therefore under no obligation to pay a fee to formalise the property to an HMO and so has not been caused an injustice.
7. Mr X says he will incur costs in future proving that the property was converted to an HMO before the Article 4 direction was introduced, should he decide to sell the property. Mr X does not have the property up for sale at present and so any injustice is speculative. In any case Mr X would have to show that work was carried out lawfully as part of the conveyancing process regardless of whether an Article 4 Direction is in place or not.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman