Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to give the notice required by Section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 before visiting a residential caravan park. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. We have ended our investigation. This is because only a court can decide whether the Council’s actions were unlawful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to give the notice required by Section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 before visiting a residential caravan park. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. He would like the Council to provide a financial remedy to address the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

7. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the Act) sets out provision for the licensing and control of caravan sites.
8. Section 26 (1) of the Act says: “Subject to the provisions of this section, any authorised officer of a local authority shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a right at all reasonable hours to enter any land which is used as a caravan site…
1. For the purpose of enabling the local authority to determine what conditions should be attached to a site licence or whether conditions attached to a site licence should be altered;
2. For the purpose of ascertaining whether there is, or has been, on or in connection with the land any contravention of the provisions of this Part of this Act;
3. For the purpose of ascertaining whether or not circumstances exist which would authorise the local authority to take any action, or execute any work, under this Part of this Act;
4. For the purpose of taking any action, or executing any work, authorised by this Part of this Act to be taken or executed by the local authority:

Provided that admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier”.

Judicial review

9. Judicial review is a legal process through which decisions made by public bodies, including local councils, can be challenged in the High Court if it is believed that the decision was unlawful, irrational, or involved important procedural mistakes. It is not an appeal but a way to quash (cancel) a decision if the court finds in favour of the claimant.

What happened

10. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
11. In mid-2025, the Council carried out a visit to a caravan park operated by a company, Company A. Following the visit, the Council wrote to Company A to notify it of several issues regarding the site, which the Council said required attention.
12. Mr X works for Company A. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not provided 24 hours notice before carrying out the visit to the caravan site. Mr X referred to the Act and said he considered the Council’s actions were unlawful. Mr X said the Ombudsman had previously made a decision which supported his view.
13. In its complaint response, the Council said it had sought legal advice about whether it was required to provide 24 hours notice before carrying out the visit. It said the right to enter the site under Section 26 (1) of the Act only required that the officer:
• Showed their authorisation if asked
• Entered land that is being used as a caravan site (or similar)
• Was doing so for a specific reason
• Entered at a reasonable time
14. The Council said its understanding of the legislation did not require it to provide at least 24 hours notice, although it was the Council's usual practice to do so.
15. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council's complaints procedure. He said the Council had misinterpreted the Act and said the Council was required to give 24 hours notice. Mr X said the Council’s interpretation of the Act also went against the previous decision made by the Ombudsman.
16. The Council’s stage two response maintained its legal services had considered the Act and the Ombudsman’s previous decision. The Council said its stage one response had already provided an explanation as to the reasons for the visit and a description of the legal advice it had received. The Council said Mr X had not provided any new information which it had not already considered and told Mr X it had concluded its complaint investigation.
17. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response and brought the matter to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

18. Mr X complained the Council failed to give the notice required by Section 26 of the Act. He says the Council acted unlawfully as a result.
19. The Council considered the Ombudsman’s previous decision about a similar matter. It also sought legal advice regarding the relevant legislation. Having done so, the Council considers it was able to carry out the visit without providing 24 hours notice.
20. The point at issue regarding this complaint is whether the law allowed the Council to visit the caravan park, under the specific circumstances of this case, without giving 24 hours notice beforehand. Mr X and the Council are in disagreement about this.
21. The complaint therefore hinges on a point of law, namely whether the law as written, allowed the Council to take the approach it did. The Ombudsman has already given a view as part of a previous separate decision, which Mr X supports but the Council disagrees with. Ombudsman’s decisions do not set legal precedent and are not binding. If someone disagrees with our view on the law, then only the courts can resolve the matter.
22. It is the role of the courts to make decisions on points of law and lawfulness, and to decide which interpretation of the law is correct; only a court can decide whether the Council’s actions were unlawful. The process to decide this is judicial review.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have ended our investigation of this complaint. This is because only a court can decide whether the Council’s actions were unlawful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman