Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unauthorised encampment. This is there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his report of anti-social behaviour caused by a nearby unauthorised encampment. He said the Council failed to:
• prevent the establishment of the encampment, which he believes poses an increased fire risk that could potentially damage a nearby historic building; and
• conduct regular fire risk assessments to effectively manage this risk.
2. Mr X described the monument's national historical importance and its value to the local community. He urged the Council to:
• report the issue to the police;
• carry out regular fire risk assessments; and
• update its policies to prevent and address the negative effects of unauthorised encampments on residents and visitors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X discovered an unauthorised encampment near a historic monument and noted evidence of a fire-making site among the tents. He said this posed a risk to the nationally significant building, which was under the Council’s care and management.
7. The Council responded that the encampment is occupied by rough sleepers and said sleeping rough is not automatically anti-social behaviour. Mr X clarified his complaint is not about the individuals sleeping rough, but about the fire risks that the unauthorised encampment poses to the nearby building. He emphasised that, by definition, an unauthorised encampment is anti-social behaviour, and the Council should take appropriate action to address the situation.
8. The Council reassured Mr X it is aware of the situation and confirmed its Health and Safety (HS) team had assessed the area and determined there was no threat to the building. It explained the tents present during Mr X’s visit were considered temporary and, therefore, did not meet its definition of an encampment. Rather than focusing on managing the risk posed by the encampment, the Council said it chose to support the group of rough sleepers to prevent them from needing to sleep rough in the future.
9. The Council considered and addressed Mr X’s concerns, clarifying that the site he reported was a temporary arrangement for individuals sleeping rough and did not meet the definition of an encampment. It further explained an encampment is not automatically considered anti-social behaviour unless it involves inappropriate conduct by those present. The Council confirmed it was aware of the situation and had assessed that there was no risk to the nearby building. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the situation to justify investigating.
10. Mr X’s primary concern relates to the potential risk to the historically significant building. However, the Council’s HS team concluded there was no threat to the structure. Therefore, any potential injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman