The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault with how it reached its decision not to revoke a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence for a property next door to Mr X. The Council considered all relevant information and made a decision in line with the Housing Act.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council has not revoked the HMO (House of Multiple Occupation) licence from the next door property. He said there is evidence of criminal behaviour and the police have been involved. He said the Council has not properly considered the evidence and instead kept closing the case.
What I have and have not investigated.
I have investigated the Council’s actions in relation to the review of the HMO licence. I have referred to, for context purposes, but I have not investigated matters dealt with by the police or the courts. These bodies are outside our jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries, Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation Housing Act 2004 – Power to Revoke licences Section 70 of the Housing Act sets out the criteria which would give councils grounds to revoke an HMO licence. These criteria include instances where the council consider: The licence holder has committed a serious breach of a condition of the licence The licence holder is no longer a fit and proper person The management of the house is not being carried out by someone fit and proper.
Closure notice Local authorities and police have powers to close premises to prevent or deal with public nuisance and disorder. The process to close premises comprises two stages – the issuing of a closure notice followed by the issuing of a closure order.
A closure notice prohibits access to the premises for the period specified in the notice. A closure order can be made for a maximum of three months and is made by the Court. Breach of a closure order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine.
What happened
Background
In January 2019, the Council granted a Mandatory HMO licence for the property next door to Mr X.
Reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) In April 2021, Mr X reported to the Council that the occupants of the HMO next door to his property were persistently fly tipping and causing a pest problem. The Council spoke to the landlord who instructed a pest controller. The treatment was successful.
In summer Mr X contacted the Council. He said the HMO next door to his property had been raided by the police and that lots of different people were coming and going. He told the Council that he was concerned by the neighbours’ behaviour.
Mr X continued to report incidents of ASB to the Council.
In October, the Council began to work with the police to address the problems with the neighbours as criminal activity was suspected. During the following months, the Council assisted the police to obtain further information to support a closure order application.
The landlord evicted the ‘problem’ tenants in November 2021.
Over the following months, the landlord carried out extensive refurbishment of the property. Mr X complained about noise at unsociable times of the day.
In late December, new tenants moved into the property. The police began to step back their investigations. Mr X reported incidents of noise late at night and other ASB. This prompted the police to serve a partial closure notice on the property in February 2022. Later that month, the Courts declined to grant police the full closure order.
HMO licence review In February 2021, Mr X informed the Council that the managing agent, and therefore HMO licence holder had changed. In August 2021, the Council received an application for a new HMO licence. It did not revoke the existing licence until January 2022.
As part of the review, the Council needed to consider whether the licence holder was ‘fit and proper’. The Council needed to await the outcome of the police investigation before coming to a view on this.
In January 2022, the Council inspected the property.
As part of the HMO licence review, the Council considered the officer inspection report, representations received from Mr X and communication from the safer communities’ team.
In March 2022, the Council granted an HMO licence for the property next door to Mr X. The Council was satisfied the application satisfied the requirements of the Housing Act.
My findings
I recognise that Mr X has experienced problems caused by the various tenants of the neighbouring HMO for several years. The Council dealt with the reports of ASB and worked closely with the police and the landlord to resolve the issues.
When the Council was alerted to the fact that the licence holder had changed, it did not immediately revoke the licence. Although the new licence holder submitted a new application in August 2021, the Council did not revoke the original licence until January 2022.
The application was submitted at the time of the frequent disturbances and reporting of ASB and criminal behaviour. As the landlord was in the process of evicting the tenants and the police were pursuing a closure notice, the Council paused its consideration of the HMO licence review.
During its stage 2 response, the Council explained to Mr X why it paused its HMO licence review. It said this was because it needed to consider whether the applicant was ‘fit and proper’ and needed to wait for all the evidence before reaching a decision on this. The Council could have kept Mr X informed at the time although this was not a requirement.
Mr X felt the behaviour and actions of the (evicted) tenants should be reason for the Council to revoke the licence. However, it is the behaviour and actions of the landlord/licence holder the Council needed to consider.
Once the Council was satisfied the landlord/HMO licence applicant met the criteria of the Housing Act, it granted the licence.
There was no fault with the way the Council reached this decision. It considered all the information available (including Mr X’s representations and information from the police and safer communities). Its decision was made in line with the law. There was some delay, but this does not amount to fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council carried out its review of the HMO licence in line with the Housing Act. There was no fault in the way it reached its decision to grant a new HMO licence.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman