Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Mr X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not following its housing strategy or parking guidance in relation to HMOs in his area and that it is acting in breach of its public duty in relation to crime and disorder and statutory overcrowding. He says an Article 4 direction, which removes permitted development rights in a particular location, needs to be applied to his area to ensure standards are met and to address high crime rates.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the impact HMOs are having in his area, particularly with regard to the crime rate, parking and overcrowding. He said the Council should introduce an Article 4 directive which would remove permitted development rights which allow the change of use from a residential home to an HMO for up to 6 people without the need for planning permission.
7. The Council responded in some detail to explain its position to Mr X and pointed out that even if an Article 4 directive was introduced, this would not mean there would be no smaller HMOs of up to 6 people but simply that a planning application would be required for the change. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and confirmed it was following all legislative requirements and associated guidance. It advised Mr X to report any incidents of anti-social behaviour and crime to it and the police.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision not to implement an Article 4 directive, it is the Council’s decision to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault has affected it. There is no evidence to suggest the Council is not properly following national or local policy with regard to HMOs.
9. Mr X says he is part of a County-wide campaign against HMOs but in such cases his, and the concerns of others, are better addressed by local councillors rather than the Ombudsman.
10. Mr X says his reasonable adjustments have not been met. Due to his numerous contacts with the Council regarding HMOs, it has offered him a single point of contact. If he accepts this offer, he can use the opportunity to clarify what adjustments he requires going forward.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman