Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to enforce licence conditions at a Residential Park. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to enforcement action against a Site Owner at a Residential Park (the Park) where he lives. He said the Site Owner had breached the Parks license by:
• not maintaining the site properly,
• failing to ensure the Park was compliant with fire safety,
• placing residential units to close together,
• completing building work without the agreement of residents,
• destroying natural habitat for wildlife,
• selling mobile homes fraudulently,
• building further residential units without planning permission.
2. Mr X said the Site Owner was not a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold the Park’s licence. He said the Council had failed to investigate his concerns properly. He wants a different authority to investigate his reports, and for the Site Owner to be removed from post.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X has lived at the Park for several years. He complained the Site Owner completed building work at the Park between 2022 and 2023 which caused a dust nuisance and destroyed natural habitat. He said the Council failed to complete any inspections at the Site until late 2024. He said the Site Owner failed to maintain the Park properly during this time.
10. We expect a person to complain to the Ombudsman within twelve months of becoming aware of the matter. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until March 2025. Therefore, any complaints about the Council’s actions before March 2024 are late and we will not investigate.
11. The Council inspected the Park in October 2024 due to reports residential units were placed to close together. It said these were the correct separation distances. It completed a further inspection at the beginning of 2025 with the Fire Service. It found that overall, the Park was compliant with fire regulations, but there were further actions required. The Council considered the maintenance of the Park’s roads, drains, signs and trees. It identified some areas of improvement. The Council gave the Site Owner a timeframe to complete the necessary work. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it intends to do a further site visit shortly, to check the Site Owner has completed the requested work.
12. The Council has inspected the Park, and where it has found issues asked the Site Owner to take remedial works. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
13. The Council considered Mr X’s allegation the Site Owner is not a ‘fit and proper’ person. It said the evidence he provided did not meet the threshold to take legal action. It set out the reasons for this. Although Mr X disagrees, we will not investigate. The Council has considered his evidence and applied the relevant legislation. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made its decision to justify our involvement.
14. Parts of Mr X’s complaints are about pitch fees, site rules and electricity and charging. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) deals with these types of disputes involving Park Homes. The Council has directed Mr X to the Tribunal. There is no good reason for Mr X not to appeal if he remains in disagreement with the Site Owner on these areas.
15. Part of Mr X’s complaint was around the Site Owner selling residential units that do not have planning permission for residential use. The Council directed Mr X to Trading Standards about the alleged fraudulent sale of properties. The Council also confirmed there was a Planning Enforcement investigation ongoing about the residential units. It directed Mr X to that service for information about enforcement.
16. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has followed the correct course of action and directed Mr X to the correct services, further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. If Mr X is unhappy with delays in the Council taking enforcement action, he can make that as a new complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman