Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disrepairs to his chalet and the behaviour of a Council officer. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with disrepair to his chalet. He also complains about the poor treatment he received from a Council officer.
2. Mr X says this has negatively impacted his physical and mental health and put his family at risk. He says he has also had to spend additional money on food because the cooker is broken.
3. He wants a new kitchen and day room and a written apology.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X informed the Council that various parts of his chalet needed repairs, including the kitchen cupboards, the hob and flooring. He also complained about vermin.
8. The Council carried out a site visit and also considered photographs of Mr X’s chalet. It wrote to him and said it had recently mended the kitchen cupboards which were falling off the wall. It said it would not repair any recent damage because this was not as a result of wear and tear and so was Mr X’s responsibility. The Council said the damage to the lino was cosmetic and therefore not its responsibility. The Council said it provided all chalets with a cooker which was included in the price Mr X paid but it was his responsibility from then on. It offered to help him obtain a grant to help pay to replace it.
9. The Council said it had unsuccessfully warned Mr X previously that he should not keep chickens on the site as it was against the rules and they attracted vermin. It again asked him to remove them.
10. The Council further explained it was prioritising day rooms for families whose chalets were unfit for habitation. Mr X’s chalet was habitable and so did not have priority.
11. The Council said it would carry out another site visit and identify any repairs it was required to carry out. These would be done within the timescales allowed in its service level agreement.
12. Mr X believes the Council has a duty to repair his kitchen and replace the flooring under The Mobile Homes Act 1983. The Council disagrees. It states that under the Act, it has a duty to maintain the communal parts of the site but the owner is responsible for keeping their mobile home in a sound state of repair. Mr X’s contract follows the wording of the Act and states the same thing.
13. The legislation is clear which responsibilities are for the site owner and which are for the occupier. The Council’s position is in line with the legislation. Therefore, we will not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
14. If Mr X believes the Council’s interpretation of the law is wrong, he can apply to the courts as they are best placed to make findings on interpretations of the law and contractual issues.
15. I have seen the emails between Mr X and the Council officer and there is no evidence of fault. In any case, it is unlikely any injustice would be significant enough to warrant the costs of an investigation, particularly as we will not investigate his other complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman