The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a selective licensing scheme for privately rented properties. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s decision to introduce a selective licensing scheme to two wards in the Council’s area. Mr B says he is a good landlord and should not be required to pay the £500 licensing fee. Mr B says the Council is wrong to target just two wards in the Council’s area. Mr B also says good landlords do not get any benefits from the scheme, and the Council should focus its efforts on an online reporting scheme for residents to report bad landlords.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B. I have also considered information on the Council website about the selective licensing scheme Mr B complains about.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has the power under section 80 of the Housing Act 2004 to designate an area for selective licensing. This requires all landlords of privately rented properties in the designated area to obtain a licence from the Council.
The Council says before the scheme was introduced it did a public consultation and followed all relevant regulations. The Council says this area was chosen because of the high proportion of private rented accommodation and anti-social behaviour. The Council says the fees are set to cover the costs of administering the scheme and are non-refundable. The Council has told Mr B he should benefit in the long term because the scheme helps the Council identify and take action against rogue landlords.
I have read the report which was considered by the Council’s Cabinet, which decided to proceed with the selective licensing scheme. In the report the Council clearly set out relevant considerations when deciding whether to introduce this scheme. This included consideration of whether there were alternatives to the scheme. The Council has also explained why it has focused this scheme on two wards in the Council’s area.
I recognise Mr B is aggrieved with the Council’s decision to introduce this scheme. But, this was a decision for the Council to make. Many local authorities have used their power to introduce selective licensing schemes to try to tackle housing related problems and anti-social behaviour.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman