Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to issues caused by a vehicle dweller encampment close to his home. There is no fault in the Council’s decision making process, it has made decisions in accordance with its policy. The Council is due to review the policy to ensure it is clear and consistent, taking into account views of residents and vehicle dwellers. The Council also carried out the actions it promised in its response to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to vehicle dwellers parking on the roads near his home. He complains the Council has not classified a Vehicle Dwelling Encampment as high impact in accordance with its policy.
2. Mr X also complains the Council made a request for Vehicle dwellers to leave an area but has not explained what action has been taken subsequently. Mr X says that there are problems with litter and criminal activity in the area close to his home.

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 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

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 my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X said there has been a permanent encampment of vans near his home for over 3 years. He has explained the majority sit in parking areas which are meant to have a 2 hour maximum policy but this is never policed or enforced.
8. The Council has a policy for vehicle dwelling encampments on the highway. The policy says that ‘each encampment will be assessed and categorised as either high or low impact’.
9. The policy says that 'low impact encampments are those where the people dwelling in vehicles say that they intend to stay in an area for a short period…..A departure date should be agreed with the stipulation that staying beyond the stated date may trigger legal action’.
10. Mr X complains the van dwellers have not agreed a departure date with the Council and so should not be considered to be low impact if the users have not provided details that they intend to stay for a short time period.
11. In response to my enquires, the Council said ‘the policy for Vehicle Dwelling Encampments on the Highway does not use length of stay as a measure for an encampment being high impact even if this is inferred under the definition of a low impact encampment. At the Homes and Housing Delivery Policy Committee dated 14 February 2025 the Committee agreed:
• To discuss the different options presented within the report and make a commitment to further engagement with vehicle dwellers across the city.
• To review the Vehicle Encampments on the highway policy. The new policy will aim to reflect the changing face of Bristol Vehicles Dwellers, identify any gaps in service provision and involve information gained from vehicle dwellers and local communities. A further report will also be brought back to a future Committee meeting. This review will resolve some of inconsistencies in the policy document.
12. I understand Mr X’s point and the Council has recognised that its existing policy appears inconsistent. I do not consider this is fault, as the Council has explained its reasons for not classing the encampment as high impact. The Council has said that the policy will be reviewed to remove inconsistencies, and this will remedy the issue.
13. Mr X also complains about the Council’s decision to classify the encampment as low impact under the other criteria in the policy.
14. The Council has explained that it does not consider the encampment as high impact as:
• It has not received evidence from the police of disorder, criminal activity or anti-social behaviour.
• It does not have an unacceptable impact on the environment and the local community as the size alone is not a sufficient measure of impact (determined by Judicial Review).
• It does not have an unacceptable impact on the environment due to its location. The Council has said vehicles are not in close proximity to residential properties, children's play and amenities.
• It does not have an unacceptable impact on the environment as there is no evidence of inappropriate waste disposal or high noise or smoke levels.
• The area has wide roads so passage and junctions are not obstructed.
15. Mr X made an official complaint to the Council. In its response the Council said officers would take the following action:
• Weekly visits to assess the site and vans.
• A monthly review of evidence to see if site is low or high impact. (The Council has said there are no record/minutes of the meetings.)
• The Council will review its approach to Vehicle Dweller Encampments as a whole.
• The Council would issue notices to move vehicles on from particular pieces of highway but this would not stop vehicles moving to the next road.
16. I asked the Council to explain what has happened since the Council issued an informal request to van dwellers in the area to vacate the land. The Council said that it issued request letters and all but one vehicle moved. This vehicle moved after a separate notice was issued. The Council said that after a month, the area filled up with different vans and those vans that moved, moved to the next street.
17. It is clear the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints and the issue he complains about has been considered at Committee. The Council is currently reviewing its policy and this will include the area close to Mr X’s property.
18. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
19. I can find no fault in the Council’s decision making. Officers have clearly considered all the points Mr X made and have followed its policy. There is a review of the policy for Vehicle Dweller Encampments underway at the moment. This will address Mr X’s concerns about the length of stay criteria and why the Council does not enforce the 2 hour maximum stay parking bays.

Back to top

Decision

20. I have completed my investigation and find no fault. This complaint is not upheld.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman