The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a housing improvement notice and pursuing the freeholder of a House in Multiple Occupation(HMO) for failing to obtain a licence under the Housing Act 2004. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal about the Notice. There is no fault in the Council requiring a licence for the premises because this is a legal requirement in a designated HMO licensing area.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council serving an improvement notice on him for disrepair in a property which he owns and lets to leaseholders. He says the notice was unreasonable due to his difficulties in carrying out repairs. He also complained about the Council pursuing him to obtain a HMO licence and threatening prosecution if he does not . He says this amounts to harassment by the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is a tribunal that considers housing act notice appeals.
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has owned a property which he is freeholder of and lets for leasehold since 2020. In 2021 he applied for a HMO licence because this is a requirement in the area where the property is situated and the Council is the body which issues the licences. The Council says he did not provide the required fee for the licence so it was an invalid application.
The Council has been seeking compliance from Mr X since this time. He says the situation is complicated because an agent whom he employed to resolve the licence issue let him down. He also says the individual leaseholders resent the licensing scheme and are un co-operative.
Having a licence for a HMO is a legal requirement and the Council told Mr X in late 2023 that he must obtain a licence because it could prosecute him under the Housing Act 2004 if he fails to comply. The penalty for non-compliance can be a fine up to £40,000 or a civil penalty.
Mr X has since applied to the Council for a Temporary Exemption Notice which would delay the requirement for a licence. The Council has not yet determined this application. If the application is refused, or if the Council issues a civil penalty for non-compliance Mr X will be able to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal which is the body appointed to consider these cases.
Mr X also says the Council served an improvement notice on him after it inspected the premises and identified hazards under the Housing Act 2004 Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). He says the notice was unreasonable and he appealed to the First Tier Tribunal to seek more time to comply with the repair requirements. The Council agreed to vary the notice and Mr X withdrew his appeal.
We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal against any enforcement or prosecution actions by the Council under the 2004 Housing Act to an independent tribunal and he has used this process already in the past.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a housing improvement notice and pursuing the freeholder of a House in Multiple Occupation(HMO) for failing to obtain a licence under the Housing Act 2004. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal about the Notice. There is no fault in the Council requiring a licence for the premises because this is a legal requirement in a designated HMO licensing area.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman