Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a caravan site licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has not made a decision on his application for a caravan site licence and has threatened him with prosecution. Mr X wants the Council to make a decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence between Mr X and the Council about the application. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In April 2021 Mr X applied for a licence to run a caravan site. The Council told Mr X it could not make a decision until he provided further information. For example, the Council told Mr X he needed to provide evidence he had planning permission for the site to hold up to 35 vans, or that he must provide a certificate of lawful use. The Council also explained that the land lease agreement he had provided was inadequate because it was heavily redacted with no start date.
5. As part of its initial assessment of the application the Council did a site visit and sought legal advice. It warned Mr X it would prosecute if he did not get a licence but said it would prefer him to submit all the evidence so it could assess the application. Alternatively, the Council said Mr X could provide evidence that the licence had been transferred from the existing licence holder.
6. Mr X disagrees with many of the evidence requirements and says the Council has simply not made a decision. He says he has provided all the necessary information and the Council has failed to process the application within the prescribed timeframe.
7. The Council is considering whether to prosecute Mr X for operating a site without a licence. I checked with the Council again today and it told me that Mr X has still not provided all the information it needs to process the application. This includes, for example, proof of planning consent.
8. The law says applicants must provide all the information reasonably required by a council and must provide proof of planning consent. The law also says the timeframe to process an application starts from the date the applicant provides the required information.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I will not comment on the legal requirements as this is addressed in the correspondence, but it is clear the Council has repeatedly and consistently told Mr X that it cannot process the application until he provides all the information, not least that he has planning consent. Mr X has not provided all the required information so the Council has been unable to process the application. Even though Mr X disagrees that the evidence is needed, he could supply it so the Council can make a decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman