Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in a decision it took to relocate a traveller family to a parcel of land it owns. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs F.
2. Mrs F complains the Council decided to relocate a traveller family to a small parcel of land it owns, which is close to Mrs F’s property. Mrs F complains the Council made the decision without reference to the local parish council or to local residents and businesses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I reviewed Mrs F’s correspondence with the Council, watched a video recording of the Council meeting during which it decided on the proposal to move the family, and sought further information from the Council.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council has a homelessness duty towards a particular traveller family, which has been resident in its area for a several years. The family had been staying on one particular site, but after reports of anti-social behaviour, the Council decided to relocate the family.
7. On 29 September 2022, the Council met and discussed its long-term plans for providing sites for travellers. During the discussion, two council members proposed the family being relocated to a small parcel of land owned by the Council. The Council voted in favour of the proposal.
8. The parcel of land is close to Mrs F’s home. After learning of the proposal, she submitted a complaint to the Council.
9. Mrs F pointed out the Council said it was planning to move the family a second time after a few weeks at the new site, and questioned whether this was appropriate. She suggested the Council should simply move the family to the (second) proposed site straightaway. Mrs F also said the Council should prioritise finding a permanent site for the family.
10. The Council explained it had accepted a homelessness duty to two traveller families, including the one in question, because they did not have a temporary or permanent caravan site to reside on. It said it had a duty to provide a permanent site for these families and, in the interim, a duty to find temporary sites for them.
11. The Council said it was currently working to identify suitable permanent sites, and, at the meeting of 29 September, officers had recommended that council members establish working group for this purpose. During the same meeting, two councillors had put forward a proposal for one family to be relocated to the small parcel of land. After a debate, councillors voted to agree the proposal to designate the land as a temporary site, until the working group reported its recommendations in November.
12. The Council said that, because the proposal was put forward and agreed during a meeting, it was not possible for it to be put first to consultation. However, it said this in accordance with the Council’s own procedural rules, and the law.
13. The Council acknowledged the concerns about the family’s relocation, and explained it intended to install fencing and toilet facilities to mitigate the impact. It said officers from its environmental health service would regularly visit to review the site to identify any further improvements the Council could make.
14. The Council also said it was regularly meeting with the local Police and Crime Commissioner to establish what action it could take if any other families moved to the site, and confirmed it could apply to the courts for eviction notices if this happened because it did not owe other families the same homelessness duty.
15. The Council said it would provide regular updates on its progress in identifying temporary sites for the family, but said it was “not in a position to engage in individual exchanges of email correspondence on this issue and … [had] nothing further to add…”.
16. Mrs F then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 October.
17. Since we accepted the complaint for investigation, the Council has confirmed it has withdrawn the proposal, and no longer intends to relocate the traveller family to the parcel of land in question.

Back to top

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or has failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’, and where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
19. However, we do not offer a right of appeal against council decisions, and nor can we make decisions on councils’ behalf or substitute their judgement for our own. If a council has made a decision properly and without fault, we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
20. In this case, during a full council meeting, councillors proposed, voted on and agreed a plan to relocate the traveller family to a piece of land the Council owns. I have watched a recording of this meeting, and I have no reason to believe the Council was not entitled to make a decision in this way. As the Council says, this was properly in accordance with its own procedures and the law.
21. And there is no rule which says the Council must first put to public consultation a proposal for using land it owns in a particular way. In this respect the Council is no different than any other landowner. This is not to say the Council cannot choose to consult on such a proposal, but we could not say it was required to do so by law.
22. However, what is not clear from this meeting, or from the Council’s complaint response, is whether it was required to submit a planning application to use the land in this way. If, for example, the proposal meant the land undergoing a change of use (in the formal planning sense), then this would normally require planning permission. Therefore, while the Council was entitled to agree to the proposal in this manner, this does not necessarily mean it could lawfully implement it without first seeking planning approval.
23. I should note the Council is the local planning authority for the area in question, and so it would also be responsible for deciding any planning application it made. This is not an unusual occurrence though; and, more importantly, if there had been a planning application, it would have involved a statutory period of public consultation, allowing Mrs F, and others, to formally object to the proposal.
24. I therefore asked the Council to clarify whether it had sought planning permission for the proposed use of the land, and if not, why.
25. The Council’s initial response to my enquiries did not actually answer this question, instead simply describing the circumstances in which the Council’s decision on the proposal had come about (which I was already aware of). However, in the same letter the Council explained it had now withdrawn the proposal anyway, and would be relocating the family to a different site.
26. As there was no longer any substantive consequence to the Council’s decision, regardless of whether it had been at fault, I made a draft decision to discontinue my investigation of this complaint.
27. In response to my draft decision, the Council explained it had inadvertently sent an incomplete version of its first letter when responding to my enquiries. It now attached the complete version.
28. In this letter, the Council said:

“During the debate on the amendment at the meeting on 29 September 2022, the Leader of the Council inferred that any relocation to the [parcel of land] would be brief and following the conclusion of [a planned public event] at the end of October 2022, he would have no issue with the specific Traveller family relocating to [a different location] from 1 November 2022 over the winter months. On this basis, there was unlikely to be a need to use the [parcel of land] because of the need to serve a Direction to Leave notice on the specific Traveller family in [the then current location]. Officers anticipated that this direction would not be complied with, which turned out to be the case. On this basis, it was not considered necessary to seek planning permission as the likelihood of the land being occupied by the specific Traveller family by 31 October 2022 was very low … At no point would it have been logical to proceed with a planning application for land that was not going to be occupied.

“[After the meeting of 29 September the] Council received a report from the Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Working Group at its next meeting on 24 November 2022 recommending that the [parcel of land] not be further considered as suitable for occupation by Gypsies and Travellers. This recommendation was accepted and no action has been taken to implement the decision taken on 22 September 2022.”

29. It is disappointing the Council failed to make this clear when I originally posed the question. But, putting this point to one side, I am now satisfied the Council has properly explained why it did not seek planning permission for the parcel of land – which was, in short, because it quickly became clear the proposed move would not go ahead anyway, and so any application would have been redundant.
30. This being the case, I consider there is no evidence of substantive fault here. Although I acknowledge Mrs F’s reasons for disagreeing with the Council’s decision, it was one it was entitled to make, and I have no grounds to criticise it.
31. On a separate point, I asked the Council why it declined to engage in any further complaints correspondence with Mrs F, after its initial response. This was despite the fact the Council’s published complaints procedure includes three separate stages of escalation. The Council responded:

“On the issue of this and other specific complaints relating to the designation of the [parcel of land], the Council did not have any further information it could impart to complainants in respect of the decision or whether and when the specific Traveller family would occupy the site. A lot of officer time could have been invested in following the complaints procedure to the letter, but the generic response provided all of the information available to officers at that point in time. It is also worth noting that Ward Councillors were involved in discussions with local residents at that time and a lot of collective resource at Member and officer level was invested in identifying alternative sites through the Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Working Group. The approach adopted in respect of these complaints was considered proportionate and had been followed in respect of other complaints received earlier in the year when the specific Traveller family had been located in [its previous location].”

32. We generally expect councils to follow their published procedures, and find fault where they do not. However, such procedures are not law, and it is permissible for councils to disapply them, where they consider it appropriate to the circumstances. I am satisfied the Council has given a proper explanation for its decision not to follow its complaint procedure here, and as this is again a decision it was entitled to make, I find no fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman