Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has responded to an encampment of vehicles on streets next to a park. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making regarding the encampment to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council explaining the kinds of evidence which may alter its decision, or in it not updating Mrs X or others on the matter, to justify an investigation. Even if there was fault on the updating issue, it causes insufficient significant personal injustice to Mrs X to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives on a street next to a park. People have stopped there, and on nearby streets, and are living in their vehicles. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. is doing nothing to help residents regarding the encampment;
2. has gone against its own policy when deciding whether the encampment amounts to a ‘high impact’ one;
3. has unreasonably asked her and other residents to provide evidence of any of the vehicle dwellers defecating in the area;
4. has failed to keep people updated after a community meeting, or to organise another meeting.
2. Mrs X says the encamped vehicles make it difficult for her to park and to negotiate nearby road junctions. She feels the community is overwhelmed by the number of vehicles. Mrs X says there is tipping of increasing numbers of mattresses. She says vehicles block her view of the park, which was the main reason for her family buying the property. Mrs X says the matter is causing her stress and affecting her mental health. She says the encampment is affecting residents’ enjoyment of the park.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to organise another community meeting to listen to residents’ concerns, and put in overnight parking restrictions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has a policy called the ‘Unauthorised Encampment Policy for Vehicle Dwellers’. It sets out criteria for officers to decide whether an encampment is ‘high impact’ on a local community where such an encampment is happening. Only where officers consider an encampment is ‘high impact’ will they take formal action using the Council’s discretionary legal powers. Any such action involving the courts would require sufficient evidence to support the Council in actions against an encampment.
8. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace council officers’ professional judgement with our or anyone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
9. In response to the reports of the encampment, Council officers have visited the location and continue to do so. Officers have recorded and considered the evidence received from residents about the encampment and the actions of people living in it. Officers have considered that evidence against the criteria in their policy to assess whether this encampment is ‘high impact’. They have reached the view that there is insufficient evidence of the impacts of the encampment for them to determine it as ‘high impact’ against the policy criteria.
10. Officers have followed a process which has allowed them to gather relevant information about the matter, to assess that evidence against their policy, and to decide how to proceed. There is not enough evidence of fault in their decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mrs X considers the Council’s requests for her and other residents to provide evidence, particularly evidence of camp dwellers leaving human waste, is unreasonable. In any kind of enforcement matter, councils are reliant on residents providing evidence because officers cannot patrol all the time. Officers have explained the kinds of evidence which may have a bearing on their assessment of the encampment as ‘high impact’. That includes whether actions of people living in the vehicles may cause a public or health nuisance. It is not fault for the Council to have explained this. The Council has no say in the evidence Mrs X decides to provide. Officers cannot compel her to send information to them and have not done so.
12. We recognise Mrs X considers the Council should keep people updated on the matter and organise another community meeting. The Council says it did not organise the last meeting, which was convened by a community group. Mrs X does not say the Council, at this meeting or at any other time, made an undertaking to provide updates to her or to others. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council not providing any promised updates. Even if it did make such an undertaking, it is open for Mrs X to request an update from the Council, so the issue does not cause her sufficient personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making regarding the encampment to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council explaining the kinds of evidence which may alter its decision, or in it not updating Mrs X or others on the matter to justify investigating; and
• even if there was fault on the updating issue, it causes insufficient significant personal injustice to her to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman