Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council inspecting a landlord’s property as part of a selective licensing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council inspecting a property for which he had applied for a selective licence under Housing Act disrepair provisions instead of the licensing scheme procedure. He says the inspectors were ‘heavy handed’ and took photographs without consideration for the tenant’s personal privacy. He also complained that the complaints procedure which he later pursued was not carried out correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
•  

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is a landlord who owns a property for rental in an area designated as a selective licensing scheme zone by the Council in 2022. In 2023 he applied for a licence and in 2024 the Council arranged to inspect his property. He says that the Council undertook a disrepair investigation under part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 and not an inspection for the licensing scheme which would be under part 3. The Council identified some elements of disrepair which it gave him advice about remedial action.
6. There is no evidence to suggest that the inspection was a disrepair inspection. The Council arranged the meeting prior to the issue of the licence and not as a result of reported disrepair which would apply to Part 1 cases. Mr X did not challenge the inspection arrangement prior to it taking place so it is reasonable to assume that he expected it to be a Part 3 matter. The Council’s advice on its website makes it clear that if any disrepair is identified under the licensing scheme process it will pursue this where necessary under part 1 HHSRS (Housing Health and Safety Rating System) powers.
7. The Council is required to ensure that the landlord is a fit and propre person to manage rented property and most councils inspect some or all properties involved in the scheme. The information published by the Council refers to inspections as being part of the procedure. In this case the Council issued advice about identified repairs to Mr X but it issued the licence so there is nothing to support this being a repairs inspection only.
8. Mr X was concerned about the privacy of his tenant but the Council says the photographs were taken with the tenant’s consent, were not published and did not disclose any personal data.
9. Mr X says the complaints he made were not correctly processed and he questioned the authority of the officers involved to consider his complaints impartially. He also believed he should have been given an opportunity to discuss his complaint in person.
10. We do not normally investigate complaints about a council’s complaints procedure where the outcome is unchanged. In this case Mr X was given two stages of consideration and there is no requirement for personal representation in these procedures. He was referred to our service when his complaint was not upheld.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council inspecting a landlord’s property as part of a selective licensing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman