Summary: The Council followed the correct process to decide a site did not need a caravan site licence. The Council wrongly revoked the licence, for which it has already apologised.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says

• The Council has not properly considered evidence that his cabin is a mobile home or has failed to explain why this evidence does not change the Council’s view on the status of the cabin.
• The Council tried to revoke a caravan site licence when it has no power to do so.
• The Council wrote to Mr B about issues with the caravan site licence, when such correspondence should have been sent to the licence holder.
• The licensing department has raised planning concerns, which are not in the remit of the licensing department.

2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have contributed to the uncertainty surrounding his tenure, as the freeholder wants to evict him. By revoking the licence, and then allowing its surrender, the Council has prejudiced Mr B’s position in relation to the freeholder being required to undertake maintenance and repair at the site. The Council has not considered the legal implications of the site owner operating the site without a licence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

5. 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

6. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr B and the Council.
• The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
• The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
7. I shared a draft of this statement with both parties and considered the Council’s response; Mr B did not reply.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr B lives in one of two cabins in the grounds of a large house. The freeholder of the land (X) has planning permission for two mobile homes, to be occupied by X or their employees. In 2008 Mr B, on behalf of X, applied for and obtained a caravan site licence.
9. If you have land on which you wish to position a static or touring caravan you need a caravan site licence, apart from some exceptions. You must have planning permission for use as a caravan site before you apply for a licence.
10. In this case the Council received a valid application, and the site had planning permission, so there was no reason not to grant a caravan site licence.
11. In 2017 the Council visited the site regarding the caravan site licence. The officer’s view was that the cabins, one of which is Mr B’s home, are not caravans so do not require a licence. The officer contacted the planning and legal departments with concerns that the site was in breach of its planning permission as the structures were not mobile homes and were not occupied by employees of X, as Mr B no longer works for X.
12. Mr B and X instructed an independent surveyor to assess whether Mr B’s cabin is a mobile home, in accordance with the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The independent surveyor concluded Mr B’s cabin is not a mobile home.
13. The Council revoked the caravan site licence on the basis the cabins are not caravans and do not need a licence. The Council later realised it does not have the power to revoke a licence and wrote to Mr B and X to explain the situation, but that X could surrender its licence. X chose to surrender the licence on the basis X and the Council are of the view the cabins are not caravans. Mr B disputes this and believes his cabin does meet the criteria to be a caravan, he provided further evidence. The Council has considered his further evidence and explained why it does not alter its view.
14. The Council’s planning department has considered the matter, following a referral by licensing. It considers the cabins are not mobile homes and there is therefore a breach of the planning permission. However, under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Council cannot take enforcement action as the breach has been in existence for more than four years. The planning department considers there may also be a breach of planning conditions about the occupation of the mobile homes, but under the law explained above, it cannot take enforcement action if the breach occurred more than ten years ago.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Mr B’s evidence

15. Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider his evidence which he says shows his cabin is a mobile home, or it has not explained why that evidence does not change its mind. In response to my enquiries the Council has explained how it considered that evidence and why it did not change its view that the cabin is not a mobile home. The Council told Mr B it had considered his evidence and it did not alter its view, but never explained why that was. Had it given Mr B the detailed explanation it has given me, it might have avoided some of his concern and the need to complain.

Revocation of site licence

16. Mr B says the Council revoked the caravan site licence when it has no power to do so. That is correct, and the Council accepts that fault. When the error was realised the Council wrote to Mr B and X confirming the error and that the caravan site licence remained in force. The site had no licence for six months, Mr B says this caused him uncertainty about his tenure and it enabled X to avoid its obligations to maintain and repair the site. The Council has apologised for any confusion, which I consider is an appropriate remedy. It is likely that had the Council not revoked the licence X would have surrendered it, as took place when the Council realised its error. Therefore, Mr B’s concerns about tenure and maintenance of the site would have been the same regardless of the Council’s actions.

The Council’s letter to Mr B

17. Mr B says a letter from the Council in March 2018, regarding concerns about the caravan site licence, should have been directed to X rather than him. The letter explained that despite revoking the caravan site licence the Council does not have authority to do so. The Council confirmed its view that the site does not require a licence, but the position was that the current licence was still in force. The letter confirmed the Council had told X of this development, and that X had the right to surrender the licence. The letter confirmed the Council’s planning department was aware of this development.
18. The Council wrote to both X and Mr B to inform them of the error in revoking the caravan site licence, and of the current position. I find no fault in the Council keeping Mr B informed of these developments and being open and transparent with both parties equally.

The licensing department raising planning concerns

19. Mr B says the licensing department has raised planning concerns when the planning department has not raised them as issues. The licensing department acted correctly by referring any planning related concerns to the planning department and informing the relevant parties it had done so.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation on the basis I cannot add to the Council’s investigation. The Council has apologised for the confusion caused by it wrongly revoking the licence.
21. I appreciate Mr B’s concerns about his tenure, but that is not a matter for the Council. The Council has followed the correct process to decide the site does not need a licence. The Council has visited the site, considered an independent report which said the cabins were not mobile homes, and has considered further evidence put in by Mr B. There is therefore no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise its decision. Any issues about Mr B’s tenure at the site are legal matters between him and X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman