Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a property next door to become a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), the HMO licensing and how it dealt with her complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s planning process or planning committee’s decision-making to warrant investigation. There is insufficient personal injustice caused to her by any fault in the HMO licensing consultation process, nor by delay in responses to questions about an infestation at the property, to justify us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives next door to a property whose owner applied for permission to convert it into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). She complains:
1. the Council failed to accurately represent local residents’ views and disregarded them during the planning process;
2. a member of the planning committee overturned the Town Council’s objections to the development;
3. the Council excluded her from the HMO licensing process despite assurances she would not be;
4. the Council delayed for two months in giving her advice and support about a rodent infestation at the neighbouring property;
5. Council officers did not investigate her complaints independently or in sufficient detail and did not reply to some of her correspondence.
2. Ms X says she felt marginalised from the planning and licensing processes, powerless and distressed. She says the processes caused her stress and frightened her. She is considering moving house.
3. Ms X wants the Council:
• to change its planning policy to take into account the track record of HMO applicants, health and safety, fire safety, welfare and support of future tenants and the impact on local residents;
• commission an independent review to learn lessons from the matter;
• train officers in dealing with residents and their views;
• provide reassurances that future planning decisions will be more ‘inclusive, rigorous and transparent’;
• apologise to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Ms X, viewed relevant online planning documents including the officer report to the committee and decision notice, and watched the planning committee meeting. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X considers the Council did not properly reflect the views and objections of local residents and disregarded them during the planning process. Residents’ material planning concerns included parking, amenity issues, noise and the character of the area. It was for the elected committee Members to assess the information and make the decision on the HMO application. If Members considered the officer report had not responded to objections in a way which meant they could not approve the application, it was open for them to vote against the grant of permission. Alternatively, if they considered they had insufficient information about the objections or any other issue, they could have asked for more to be provided and agreed to defer their planning decision. The planning officer report to the committee summarised residents’ views, setting out which were and were not material planning issues, and that report was placed before the planning committee as the decision-makers. There is not enough evidence of fault in how officers and Members considered residents’ objections here to warrant investigation.
8. During the planning committee meeting, a committee Member who was also a Town Council Member explained how they had changed their view on a matter relating to the provision of information by the applicant. The Council’s planning officers had been negotiating with the property’s owner to change the proposal and concern had been raised that not all the application documents reflected those changes. Ms X considers this Member ‘overturned’ the Town Council’s objections to the development. The Member was explaining how they believed the previous objection had in their view been allayed by the planning officers’ responses. Members are entitled to express their views at committee meetings and it is not fault for them to do so. The Member’s own comments did not withdraw those objections. The Town Council’s objections were still before the committee.
9. If Ms X considers the elected Member’s actions at the committee amounted to misconduct, that would be a separate standards complaint to the Council. The Council has advised Ms X on how to submit such a complaint should she wish to do so.
10. In any event, the Town Council was a consultee on the application, not the decision-maker here. Its views were not binding on the Borough Council as the planning decision-making body. If the other planning committee Members believed the Town Council’s objections had not been allayed and gave them material grounds for a refusal, it was open for them to vote to refuse the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault by officers or Members on this issue to justify an investigation.
11. We may only go behind a decision where there is evidence of fault in the process and but for that fault a different decision would have been reached. We recognise Ms X disagrees with the decision to grant the permission. But it is not fault for a council or elected committee Members to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. Ms X says the Council excluded her from the HMO licensing process despite assurances she would not be. HMO licensing includes an opportunity for public comments, similar to that in the planning process. It is not clear what assurances Ms X was given about her involvement in that licensing process which have not been fulfilled by the usual opportunity for the public to comment. If the HMO licence is yet to be issued, it may be that opportunity is forthcoming. But even if the licence has been issued, any loss of opportunity to Ms X during the HMO licensing process to raise issues about the licensee does not cause her a sufficient injustice warranting investigation. Anyone may approach a council about an HMO if they believe it is causing nuisance, is a threat public safety, or they consider its owner is not a fit and proper person to manage the property. If Ms X has such concerns, she can raise them with the Council for officers to consider. It would then be for officers to decide how to proceed.
13. Ms X says the Council delayed for two months in giving her advice and support about a rodent infestation at the neighbouring property, part of wider concerns she raised about the suitability of the property as an HMO. Such an issue would not be a material planning issue. The Council apologises for delaying its response on this issue and advised an officer would be replying. But the delay did not cause Ms X such significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation. The condition of the property would be a matter for the HMO licensing process to consider. If Ms X has concerns about an infestation or any other public health issue, she may raise them with the Council at any point for its officers to consider and decide how to proceed.
14. Ms X says Council officers did not investigate her complaints independently or in sufficient detail and did not reply to some of her correspondence. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s planning process or the planning committee’s decision-making to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient personal injustice to her caused by any Council fault in the HMO licensing process or the delay in responses to questions related to the condition of the property to justify an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman