Summary: The Council delayed acting to remove caravan and vehicle dwellers from a road where Mr C has a business. The Council failed to act to resolve concerns of anti-social behaviour, fly tipping and defecating in the street. The Council delayed dealing with Mr C’s complaint and did not address all his issues. The Council failed to keep Mr C informed. Mr C worries about his livelihood due to the impact on his business from customers unable to park or not wanting to pass the vehicles and witness upsetting behaviour. The Council will apologise, pay Mr C £750, ensure to keep him updated, and deal with any future reports without delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr C, says the Council failed to enforce against “van dwellers” parking in a layby and on double yellow lines in contravention of the parking restrictions and failed to deal with associated anti-social behaviour including fly tipping, obstructing a highway, defecating in the street and aggressive behaviour. The Council failed to respond to Mr C’s concerns.
2. Mr C says the issues affect his business and he is aggrieved that he paid for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which is not being enforced so appears worthless. The issues are affecting his mental health as he worries about his livelihood. Mr C would like the Council to refund what he paid for the TRO and enforce the traffic regulations to move the “van dwellers” and enable customers of his and other local businesses to use the local parking and not be put off attending.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr C, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
• Relevant Council policies and law referenced where necessary in this statement.
• Responses from both parties to a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C owns a business. When he took on the lease, he paid for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to prevent parking along the road leading up to his business. This was required by the Council to address concerns of road safety leading up to the site if customers parked on the road.
7. The city is having a widespread problem with people living in vehicles and caravans on the public highway. This is happening on the road leading up to Mr C’s business since May 2017. There have been issues before this, but it is a transient population who come and go.
8. Mr C is concerned the Council is not enforcing the TRO he paid for to preserve highway safety. But, also concerned about the behaviour of the people living in the vehicles and caravans. Mr C says he has witnessed fighting, discarded needles used to take drugs, fires, dumping of rubbish in the street, defecating in the street, and he has been subject to abuse. Mr C has received complaints from his customers about the same issues and it has put customers off attending his business.
9. The Council first used powers under Section 143 of the Highways Act 1980, but when that didn’t work it started a review of its processes for dealing with vehicle dwellers on the public highway. While that review was underway, and the Council produced and consulted on a new policy, it took no action to deal with the vehicle dwellers and the problems they were causing. This was six months where the Council delayed acting on the problem. Although it was introducing a new policy, it already had the powers contained within that policy and could have used them.
10. Sixteen months after serving the Section 143 notices, the Council acted under Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994. It served notices on 15 caravans and vehicles but only one left the site.
11. Two months later the Council got a court order to remove the vehicles. I do not know whether the Council successfully removed the vehicles, it seems it did but three months later the caravans and vehicles returned. The Council served notices on the vehicles and caravans that they must leave, or the Council would go to court.
12. Despite the Council’s efforts it was not resolving the problem, vehicles would leave but would then return or be replaced with others. In July this year the Council got a court injunction but is still working to remove the vehicles and caravans. The Council says it could have decided to pursue the injunction sooner, but it would have had an impact on the relevant team carrying out its statutory duties.
13. The Council could not enforce against breaches of the TRO while parking signs were vandalised, but the Council took no action to repair or replace the signs.
14. The Council has not evidenced that it took any action about the associated anti-social behaviour, fly tipping and human excrement in the street. I have made two sets of enquiries to the Council but received no information about these issues.
15. The Council delayed responding to Mr C’s complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure by nine months, and when it did respond it did not address Mr C’s concerns about anti-social behaviour. The Council has not kept Mr C informed, and he is always having to chase it for information.

Was there fault casing injustice?

16. The Council refers to resource issues several times. It only has eight parking enforcement officers to cover all the city. It refers to a lack of resources to carry out the new policy when introduced and says if it had applied for the injunction sooner it would have impacted on its ability to complete other work.
17. While the Ombudsman has sympathy for the pressure councils are under to manage with scant resources, it can never be an excuse to not meet statutory duties and not provide a service to its customers. The lack of resource in this case has delayed the Council dealing with the issues.
18. The Council had a concern about road safety in the area, which resulted in the TRO. The Council has not taken prompt action to enforce the TRO so is allowing unsafe road conditions to continue. In March 2019 the Council said it would replace the damaged road signs as soon as possible; it did not do so.
19. Although the Council recognised a need for a policy to deal specifically with vehicle dwelling encampments, that did not restrict the Council from acting under powers it has while working on the policy. Yet the Council have delayed using its powers while it focused on introducing a new policy.
20. The Council failed to act on concerns about anti-social behaviour, fly tipping and excrement in the street. The Council delayed responding to Mr C’s complaint and did not address all his concerns and has not adequately responded to my questions. The Council has failed to keep Mr C updated.
21. While most of Mr C’s injustice is caused by the actions of the vehicle and caravan dwellers, it is prolonged and exacerbated by the actions of the Council. Mr C worries about his livelihood as he is losing customers at his business. These worries negatively impact on his mental health. Mr C is intimidated by the vehicle dwellers and must pass them every day to get to work. Mr C has the time and trouble of complaining and chasing the Council for updates on what is happening.
22. Mr C wants the cost of the TRO refunding, but I do not find that is a direct injustice of the faults identified in this statement. The TRO was required and correctly applied, so it is correct Mr C paid for that. The issue is the Council is not enforcing it, and the impact of that is the vehicle and caravan dwellers remain and affect Mr C’s business and mental health. I therefore recommend a payment to acknowledge this distress rather than a refund of the TRO.

Agreed action

23. To acknowledge the impact on Mr C the Council will:
1. Apologise for its delay and failure to keep him informed, and pay £750 to recognise his distress, time and trouble.
2. Provide Mr C with an estimated timeline of upcoming actions to remove any caravan or vehicle dwellers from the road where his business is and keep him updated of any changes.
3. Ensure it acts on any further reports about caravan or vehicle dwellers, and associated behavior, without delay.
24. The Council should complete the above actions within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and provide us evidence of its compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation on the basis the agreed action is enough to recognise the impact of the Council’s failings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman