The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint concerning an HMO (House in Multiple Occupation). This is because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to respond adequately to the issues he raised in his complaint to it concerning an HMO and its licence exemption.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council in 2021 about a property he had recently lived in to ask whether it had had an HMO licence or had been granted an exemption.
The Council told Mr X it had recently granted the property an HMO licence exemption but that even if the property should have had a licence before the date of the exemption, the Council could not take any enforcement action because its officers had not witnessed whether it was a licensable property at the relevant time. However, it told him he was entitled to apply for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) if he felt he had sufficient evidence to support it but that it could not help him with gathering evidence. It told him of the type of evidence required and provided the appropriate government link to make an application.
A year later Mr X contacted the officer who had previously communicated with him about the matter, asking for some additional information and querying why his emails had not been answered. The Council responded and apologised for its delay in getting back to him. It repeated the information previously given about the HMO and applying for an RRO.
While Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response, it apologised for its delay in replying to him and explained the officer who had responded to him in 2021 had left the Council and her replacement had been on paternity leave. It did not specifically respond to Mr X’s request that it “list the exact evidence that would be required for the council to carry out enforcement action. Please also explain how the residents living in the property testifying would not be classed as suitable evidence” but it had explained in 2021 why it would not be taking enforcement action and of the type of evidence he would need to make his own application for an RRO.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are a publicly funded body and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner and here neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman