Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in her street. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains the Council did not notify her and other residents of an application to convert a house to an HMO with six bedrooms. Ms B says the HMO has led to driving, parking and safety issues and she wants the Council to revoke its licence and ensure the property is converted back to a domestic dwelling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms B and the Council’s responses to her complaints. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B informed the Council that a house in her street was being converted to an HMO without planning permission. The Council opened an enforcement investigation, visited the property and wrote to Ms B to explain the outcome of its investigation.
6. The Council explained to Ms B that the owner of the property had the right, under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, to convert a property to an HMO with up to six rooms. As the owner of the property had permitted development rights to carry out this work, they did not require planning permission.
7. Some areas of the District have an Article 4 direction that removes those permitted development rights. Planning permission is required in those areas to use a dwelling as an HMO for more than three unrelated people. But Ms B’s road is not covered by this, so again the owner did not need to apply for planning permission and there was no planning enforcement action the Council could take.
8. The Council has explained to Ms B that even if local councillors decided to pursue an extension of the Article 4 direction to include Ms B’s street, this would only apply to future conversions and not the already converted property.
9. While Ms B is unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with this matter, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decisions, because it has visited the site, considered relevant planning legislation and whether the property is covered by the Article 4 direction. The Council has provided a clear explanation to Ms B as to why there is no planning breach.
10. The Council has also explained to Ms B that it is not the highways authority and concerns about road safety need to be raised with that authority.
11. As the owner of the property has not breached planning control and had the right under planning legislation to convert the property, the Council has no power to take action to achieve the outcome Ms B wants of the property’s conversion back to a single domestic dwelling.
12. Ms B wants the Article 4 direction to be extended to include her street. That is a matter for future consideration. But the Council has explained to Ms B this would not change the position with the already converted property. There are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council and say it should have pre-empted a property owner in the street wanting to convert their house to an HMO and extended the Article 4 direction to ensure this could not happen.
13. If Ms B believes the property is now in use as an HMO without a relevant licence, she can report this to the Council through its website and ask it to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman