The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an HMO conversion next to Ms X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to address her concerns about the conversion of the property next to her home from a dwelling house to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Her property has been damaged by builders working at the HMO and she wants the Council to take action and compensate her for its failings.
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 or may decide not to continue with 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 Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council about work taking place at the property next to her home which was converting a dwelling house into an HMO. Ms X complained about the size of the extension being built, the licensing of the HMO property, the quality of the work carried out and its inspection.
In responding to Ms X, the Council acknowledged it had delayed considerably in carrying out its enforcement investigation and replying to her complaint. It apologised for this and offered her £100.
With regards to the substance of Ms X’s complaint, the Council explained the change from a dwelling house to an HMO and the extension built both fell within permitted development rights which meant neither required planning permission from the Council. It confirmed it would be contacting the owner to assess whether an HMO licence was required and that it would take appropriate action.
The Council noted Ms X’s concerns about the quality of work carried out at the property, but it explained it had no role in the approval, monitoring and regulation of Approved Inspectors as this is carried out independently by the regulatory body CICAIR.
As Ms X has previously been advised, damage to her property by the builders and issues relating to Party Wall Agreements are civil matters with which the Council is not involved. Ms X has been understandably concerned about the conversion and the works undertaken but there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in relation to how it has dealt with the matters raised by Ms X in relation to the property.
The Council did delay in carrying out its investigation and in responding to Ms X’s complaint and this was fault. However, given it has apologised and offered a £100 payment, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Even if we were to investigate the delay, we would be unlikely to recommend a remedy significantly different to what the Council has already offered.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman