Summary: We found no fault on Mr J’s complaint about the Council failing to properly investigate, and take enforcement action, on his reports about a holiday static caravan park in which he owns a caravan. The Council acted on reports, visited the site, communicated with the park owners who co-operated and took action to resolve the problems, and liaised with the fire brigade.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the Council failing to properly investigate, and take enforcement action on, his reports of serious health and safety and planning concerns against the owners of a holiday static caravan park in which he has his own caravan; as a result, this caused him some frustration and stress as he continues to have poor living conditions on site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
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 there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mr J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. About six years ago, Mr J bought a static caravan which he keeps on freehold land he owns on a caravan park. The park is divided between those who own the freehold (the freeholders) and those who do not. Those who do not own the freehold rent a plot from the park owners. Mr J explained the problem is the current park owners (the company) act as though they own the entire site.
7. The Council confirmed there are a number of freehold plots on site which are privately owned as well as plots owned by the company. It explained while it licensed a number of freehold plots, the conditions rely on a relationship between the company and freeholder. In the past, there was an agreement between the freeholders and the company under which they paid an annual sum to the company for it providing toilets, showers, waste disposal, road and lighting maintenance, and water standpipes, for example. Over the years this relationship broke down.
8. Problems have existed for several years but recently, Mr J reported the company to the Council. This was because of the poor condition of the entire site which affects the freeholders. He complained the company made it difficult for them to live there by dumping fridges, gas canisters, and broken caravans in a large, unfenced area near his plot. Apart from attracting rats, it posed a fire hazard.
9. The Council explained it first got involved when the company copied it in to an email it sent to another resident in March 2022. Mr J says this resident represented the freeholders. I have seen emails between the Council and the company showing it made it aware of the issues another resident raised. The company replied explaining what action it had taken and steps being taken to remove rubbish from the site. An officer visited the same month. This was all done before Mr J complained to the Council.
10. Mr J says the officer looked at the mess but saw no problem. Mr J then contacted the Council about it. He sent photographs of rubbish on site, including mattresses, more than a dozen fire extinguishers, and fridges. The officer responded to Mr J’s queries about why he had contact with the company before visiting. He explained it was an informal visit so there was no formal report to disclose to Mr J.
11. While the officer agreed the site could do with tidying up, as it was an eyesore, it was not a danger to residents. As the material on site was inert, there was no nuisance. The material gave off no odours and contained nothing organic that might rot. The company fenced off this area and the officer noted a skip on site.
12. A councillor contacted the officer sending photographs showing abandoned caravans behind metal fencing, and rubbish behind fencing that was at an angle with gaps. The officer acknowledged he had not seen the fallen fencing or unfenced waste. He explained he had not inspected all the site and did not know how recent the photos were. The officer would contact the company again, which he did. He also asked other officers about visiting to assess any health and safety issues. The extinguishers were removed, and skips ordered to remove the rubbish.
13. Another officer visited who noted a small area was used to dump materials from stripped caravans. The company removed three skips of waste and had another three on site. The company thought it would take another three weeks to clear. The officer had asked the company for information about its health and safety policy, risk assessments, and asbestos survey, although thought its presence on site was unlikely.
14. In July, the evidence shows the company said it had cleared the rubbish but still had some to clear. It provided photographs showing what had been done and what needed doing.
15. Mr J complained to the Council in August. He sent the Council photographs taken on the day of the officer’s visit earlier that year and videos he took inside abandoned caravans. During a site inspection the same month, done jointly with the fire brigade, the Council noted the waste on site was now largely removed. This meant there was no environmental or nuisance enforcement action it could take.
16. The Council told Mr J the local fire brigade decided there was no immediate risk requiring enforcement action. The fire brigade kept Mr J updated about the outcome of its visits. There were some spacing issues between some caravans which it brought to the attention of the site owners. Fire officers later visited again and assessed the whole site. It discussed the build-up of waste on the site and resident safety with the owners who said they were removing it but until then, would store it behind fences a safe distance aware from all caravans.
17. The fire brigade kept the Council updated too. It also noted at a later visit that the number of caravans had been reduced with scrap caravans now at the rear of the site. Fire officers discussed the risk of fire and were told there was 24 hour security in that area to deal with the risk of arson. The fire brigade was satisfied the risk of fire was managed by staff on site. It had also raised the issue of the road on site for access and was told the owners would create a hardstanding surface. It also considered extinguishers on site, manual fire clangers installed, and some rubbish already removed. After its last visit, the fire brigade wrote to the company with recommendations. It closed its case because it was satisfied with fire safety measures and access for fire crews. There was not an unacceptable risk.
18. Mr J is also unhappy with the Council’s planning team. He complains there was no notification of a planning application made by the company, for example. The Council went on to refuse this application. The Council confirmed while it received reports about planning issues at the site, none were from Mr J. He has not raised any planning enforcement issue with it about the site.
19. The Council explained it initially looked at the site in terms of a statutory nuisance and public health from the accumulated waste but later looked at it from a health and safety point of view. It explained as there were no suggestion site licence conditions were breached, no specific checks were made.
20. It states the company engaged positively with officers and has not been obstructive.
21. The licence conditions for the site includes the company ensuring the site had adequate arrangements for the provision of drinking water, foul drainage, communal amenity areas, and set out the minimum number of toilets per number of caravans. The licence also said there would be satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of refuse.
22. The evidence shows the Council raised a report of sewage from some caravans. The company responded by pointing out it provided toilet facilities on site.

My findings

23. I found no fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. Before Mr J made his first report to the Council about the condition of the site, an officer had already visited and been in contact with the company about waste on site. This shows it was informally engaging with the company to resolve the problems.
2. Following reports from Mr J and a councillor, the officer again contacted the company about problems with the site. He asked officers from another team to visit to assess the site which was done. The evidence shows the company removed, and continued to remove, waste from the site. The company co-operated with the Council and acted to resolve reported problems.
3. The Council also liaised with the fire brigade who also visited to inspect the site on several occasions. The fire brigade found the risk was being managed to an acceptable level.
4. The officer considered the nature of the material found on site, which was mainly inert and was in the process of being removed. It was unlikely, therefore, the material itself would be prejudicial to health or amount to a statutory nuisance.
5. On balance, I am satisfied the Council acted on the reports received about the condition of the site. The Council decided, taking account of all the circumstances including the company’s actions and co-operation, that it did not need to look at escalating the case to more formal action. This was a decision it was entitled to take.
6. Although there is no evidence of the Council considering whether the condition of the site breached the site’s licence, I am not satisfied this is an issue that justifies further investigation. This is because the Council dealt with the reports about waste on site and a report about sewage which it raised with the company. In addition, the fire brigade considered issues concerning issues covered by the licence such as fire risk, extinguishers, spacing, and the on-site road, for example.
7. There is no evidence of the Council receiving any report from Mr J about planning breaches on site. Even if there had been fault in the notification procedure with the planning application he complained to us about, we would not investigate it. This is because the Council refused it so there was no injustice to Mr J.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I found no fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman