Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of breaches of the site licence conditions, planning and other matters about the running and management of the mobile home site where he lives. There are no new issues here that should be investigated further. The Council is yet to respond to Mr B on his concerns about whether his mobile home is level so I do not consider I should investigate that further now.

The complaint

1. Mr B lives in a mobile home on a small site. He complains about the Council’s consideration of breaches of the site licence conditions and other matters about the running and management of the site and the Council’s responses. He considers the Council has failed to use the powers available to it to remedy problems on the site. And specifically he complains the Council has not responded to his concerns that he was mis-sold his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 the complaint and asked Mr B to supply additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B lives in a mobile home on a small site. He bought his home in 2013. He has complained about the operation of the site and the Council’s response to the issues he has raised almost since he moved in. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman and we sent him decisions on complaints in October 2016 and July 2017. I cannot revisit matters that were the subject of those decisions.
7. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in early October 2018 and we asked the Council whether it had had chance to consider the complaint. The Council wrote to Mr B shortly after setting out its position on the main points he had raised.

Analysis of the issues

The Council’s overall approach

8. Mr B considers the Council has failed to use the powers available to it to tackle the issues he has raised about the operation of the site where he lives. I cannot pursue a complaint in such general terms. I understand how strongly Mr B feels about the running of the site and the Council’s role in that. I have referred to certain specific points below but I cannot comment on Mr B’s general overarching comments.
9. Much of what Mr B has referred to relate to his ongoing dissatisfaction with the site and the Council’s response. But I am not going to revisit matters where there has been no significant new action. I refer below to those issues where there has been some new action or further clarification would be helpful.

The Council’s action in 2018

10. The Council has commented that it had seven detailed complaints from Mr B over the two months from July 2018 and it needed to ensure it sent a co-ordinated response that did not duplicate previous responses. I accept that but it did not explain what was happening to Mr B. It was only when he approached the Ombudsman and we asked the Council about the complaints that he received a response. But I do not consider this is significant in terms of the impact on Mr B and am not going to pursue a complaint about complaint handling in isolation.

January 2017 decision on contact with the Council

11. Mr B made a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to the Council. This related to the Council’s decision in January 2017 to limit how Mr B could contact the Council. We considered a complaint from Mr B about that decision in July 2017. We decided it did not cause Mr B significant injustice and did not investigate it.
12. Mr B raised the alleged failure to respond to his FOI with the Information Commissioner. They directed him to the Ombudsman as his complaint is really about the procedure used to make the decision limiting his contact with the Council. I agree that this is what is at the heart of this point but we decided in July 2017 that we were not going to consider that.
13. Mr B has said that when he complained before about the January 2017 decision he did not know there was a requirement in the Council’s policy to have a minuted meeting of the decision to impose limitations on means of contact. His FOI request was for copies of the documents relating to the decision to limit his means of contact.
14. I recognise Mr B is still aggrieved at the January 2017 decision and with how the Council then dealt with his FOI requests relating to it but we decided in July 2017 there was no significant injustice to Mr B as a result of that decision. Even if Mr B is right and the proper process was not followed it does not affect the basis of our July 2017 decision that there was no significant injustice to him so there were not grounds to investigate.

Mr B’s home not being level

15. Mr B has discovered that his home is not level on the plot. He considers it must have been like this since he purchased. Mr B raised this with the Council in July 2018. In the October response the Council asked Mr B to provide a copy of his survey which he has now done.
16. This is still being considered by the Council so I do not consider I should consider this point further now. If Mr B is unhappy with the response he receives from the Council then he can make a further complaint to the Ombudsman.

Mis-sold

17. Mr B wrote to the Council in July 2018 setting out the history of the site and arguing that he had been mis-sold the mobile home and this was something the Council could pursue under consumer protection powers.
18. The Council responded in its October letter to Mr B. It said it had responded to him in September 2015 on these same points and would not be commenting further. The Council’s letter of September 2015 said that there was misleading information in the brochure about the 10 year warranty. The warranty would only be valid if the owner had registered with the insurance backed scheme which had not happened. It commented that the website wording was ambiguous. The Council said it would address them with the owner with a request to change the statements or to register with the appropriate scheme.
19. Mr B has not raised material new matters about the mis-selling allegation that would warrant further action by the Council. I therefore consider the Council’s response of October 2018 to be adequate.

Fire safety

20. Mr B said the Council had not ensured compliance with an enforcement notice it had served on the site owner in April 2016. The Council said the owner provided a copy of a satisfactory fire risk assessment in May 2016 which meant the notice was complied with.
21. In its response in October 2018 to Mr B the Council referred him to the fire and rescue service in response to any concerns he had about fire safety on the site. Mr B had raised concerns about fire points and means of raising an alarm. The fire and rescue service said in January to Mr B that one of its officers was in contact with the Council about the need to review the fire risk assessment specifically in respect of means of giving warning of a fire on the site. But the fire service was satisfied that the site was broadly compliant with the relevant regulatory requirements. The Council inspected the site in September 2018 and was satisfied that there were no issues with any aspects of fire safety for which it is responsible.
22. Mr B has had recent correspondence with both the Council and the fire service chasing up what was happening about the review of the fire risk assessment in respect of the means of raising an alarm. If Mr B is not satisfied with the response he gets from the Council on this point he can make a further complaint to the Ombudsman.

Layout of the site

23. During my consideration of the complaint Mr B provided information about the layout of the site and whether it was as the planning permission required. It was unclear whether he had raised this with the Council so I asked the Council for its comments.
24. In summary the Council said in September 2015 that if the location of a mobile home changed then the owner (of the site) would need to submit an application for a non-material amendment to the planning permission. Mr B said the location of a mobile home had changed (and there were other changes on the site) and therefore the Council should take action. The Council’s position now is that the location of mobile homes on the site are governed by the site licence and not the planning permission. It would not therefore consider that any planning enforcement action is necessary. But even if that were the wrong interpretation the changes are so minor it would not consider planning enforcement action to be warranted.
25. In terms of the site licence the Council has inspected and considers the location of the home in relation to the others on the site and the access road is acceptable. So again, action is not necessary. The Council’s position is now different from the information it gave Mr B in September 2015. But I do not consider there is fault in how the Council has considered the issue now about the location of the mobile homes in the site.
26. I recognise Mr B may have raised these matters as examples of where he considers the Council is not taking action where it has powers to do so. It is for the Council to decide in each case whether action is appropriate. The fact that there may be a technical breach of either the site licence or the planning permission does not mean that action should automatically follow.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There are no new issues here that should be investigated further. The Council is yet to respond to Mr B on his concerns about whether his mobile home is level so I do not consider I should investigate that further now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman