The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a one year House in Multiple Occupation licence. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to use his rights of appeal and the Council has not had the opportunity to respond to part of the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s decision to grant a one-year House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.
My assessment
Mr X told us the Council should have granted his HMO license application for five years as he holds a five-year accreditation under the Council’s Landlord Accreditation Scheme (CLAS). He says the Council refused this and issued the licence for 1 year. Mr X says the Council failed to follow its HMO policy and failed to issue a clear decision.
The Council’s policy says it has discretion to offer any length of licence it considers appropriate. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It says, based on its eligibility criteria, a one year licence was more suitable. It agreed the wording in its decision about the reduction in the term of the licence was in a smaller print. It said it will not do this in future. But there is nothing to suggest this would have made a difference to the Council’s decision.
If someone disagrees with the licensing conditions the Council sets out, they have the right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal. The Tribunal is an independent expert body who decisions are binding on councils. So, it would not have been unreasonable to expect Mr X to have used the specific remedy the law provides for people who wish to challenge HMO licence decisions.
Mr X told us the Council is now trying to revoke his 5-year accreditation. I have not considered this issue because we would expect Mr X to complete the Council’s formal complaint process first of all.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is not unreasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal against the Council’s decision to issue a one year HMO licence, and the Council has not had the opportunity to respond to part of the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman