The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s property licence applications as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him from any Council fault, to justify our further involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to apply a £75 discount when he applied for licenses for two rental properties he owns in the same building. Mr X complained the Council changed the wording of its fee structure after he had applied which he says meant he did not qualify for the reduction. Mr X wants the Council to grant the reduction he says he was entitled to, given the terms of the scheme at the point he applied.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 any injustice arising from any Council fault is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council acknowledged that the wording of its fee structure had been unclear and that Mr X had spent some time in pursuing his complaint. In recognition of this, the Council offered Mr X a payment of £25.
The Council explained however, that the wording of the fee structure or changes subsequently made to it, did not impact on any reduction Mr X was eligible for. The Council pointed out that the fee structure in place when Mr X made his applications stated that no other discount would be applied where a discount had already been awarded for an early application. When the scheme was introduced, a discount was applicable for early applications, prior to the scheme becoming operational. Mr X applied early and was granted this reduction.
The Council changed the wording of the fee structure to clarify that a £75 discount would apply where applications were made by the same owner of three or more rental properties in the same building. Mr X has two rental properties in the same building and says the original wording of the fee structure made no reference to the discount only applying where three or more properties were owned.
Notwithstanding that Mr X was not entitled to any further discount on top of the one he received for his early applications, the Council explained that Mr X would not, in any case, have been prejudiced by the change in wording of the fee structure. It explained that the reduction was offered due to the reduced consideration that would need to be given to multiple applications from the same person. In Mr X’s case, he made separate applications on behalf of two separate businesses which each needed their own consideration. The Council says Mr X made no reference in either to the other application. In the Council’s view therefore, Mr X would not have been entitled to the discount whichever criteria had been in place.
I consider £25 is an appropriate remedy from the Council in respect of the confusion caused to Mr X and the time and trouble he spent on the complaint. Having checked the wording of the two fee structures Mr X refers to, I cannot see evidence of any separate fault causing an injustice to him. As such, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman