Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application for a change of use of a dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on neighbourhood parking when it granted permission for the use of a property close to her home as an HMO. She says the excessive number of vehicles owned by tenants of the HMO are an eyesore, a safety issue and its front garden should be changed back from hardstanding to grass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint and the Committee meeting minutes and report on the application in question.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The owner of a property close to Ms X’s home sought and obtained retrospective consent for the use of the house as an HMO.
8. Ms X and other residents objected to the application and Ms X spoke at the planning committee as the application had been called in for a decision by members. Having considered matters members decided to follow the officer recommendation and granted consent for the change of use.
9. While I understand Ms X disagrees with the decision, we do not act as an appeal body. It is not our role to question decisions a council takes if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Ms X’s concerns and the views of other objectors were considered but the Council decided to grant permission. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take, and I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
10. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X sets out the concerns she raised with the Council and which it considered as part of its assessment of the application. With regard to parking matters which Ms X says are breaches of the covenant which binds properties on her estate, these are civil matters with which the Council is not involved.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman