Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of her client Ms D, that the Council did not honour a commitment it gave that she could move on to a pitch at a Gypsy and Traveller site. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council should not have withdrawn its offer to Ms D. Its actions caused her distress and meant she missed an opportunity to move on to the site. The Council had recognised fault in its communications with Ms D. It had apologised and offered a symbolic payment. But we considered these measures did not adequately remedy Ms D’s injustice. The Council accepted our findings and agreed to increase its symbolic payment to Ms D and allocate the next available pitch at the site to her. It also agreed to consider a series of concerns we highlighted about its existing allocations policy as part of a review of that policy.

The complaint

1. Ms C complained on behalf of Ms D, that the Council failed to provide a pitch to Ms D at a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site it manages within the Borough. This was despite the Council previously telling Ms D it would allocate the pitch to her.
2. Ms C said the Council’s decision caused distress to Ms D. She felt used by the Council, having ensured the pitch did not suffer vandalism or littering while vacant. At the time we received this complaint, Ms D continued to live in ‘bricks and mortar’ housing to which she has a cultural aversion. Ms C said this caused her to experience a low mood and anxiety.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Ms C and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of their comments and any further evidence they provided, before issuing this final decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

8. The Council has a policy for allocating pitches on its Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites contained within Chapter 5 of its Gypsy and Traveller Management Policy (October 2014).
9. Chapter One of the policy sets out the “policy context” and refers to key legislation and other policy documents relevant to it. This includes reference to the Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which covers the right to private and family life.
10. The Council says the overall aim of its policy is to provide a “fair, transparent and accountable method of allocating caravan pitches” (Chapter 5, paragraph 1.1). And that it sets out therefore a “fair and equitable system of allocation of caravan pitches” (paragraph 2.1).
11. The policy says the Council will allocate pitches “on a priority needs basis using the principles of the Housing Act 1996 Part VI and VII”. This Act explains councils must give ‘reasonable preference’ for housing to some categories of applicant, such as those who are homeless and found in ‘priority need’.
12. Part 3 of the policy sets out who can apply to join its waiting list for pitches. While part 6 sets out a list of reasons the Council might reject an applicant, such as a history of rent arrears or certain criminal convictions.
13. Part 4 sets out the application procedure. The applicant completes a form and gives it to the site manager. The Council then scores each application according to a points system (paragraph 4.3). The Council says that it considers housing need, local connection and community cohesion when assessing applications (paragraph 4.3). The Council says that it will “contact the applicant when an available pitch is allocated in line with this policy and in points order” (paragraph 4.5).
14. The Council says that in practice the site manager will identify a shortlist of those applicants with the highest priority when a pitch becomes vacant. They will undertake checks to ensure the applicant’s circumstances have not changed and complete any necessary landlord references or police checks. The shortlist then goes to a housing manager who recommends which applicant the Council should allocate the pitch to. Their recommendation goes to the Head of Service for a final decision. At their discretion, the Head of Service can ask the Director with responsibility for Housing to make the final decision instead.
15. Part 5 of the Policy explains the “needs assessment procedure” or pointing system, in more detail. It says: “priority will be afforded first to applicants with the greatest housing need as per the points system within each band”. If applicants in the same band have equal points, it will give priority to the applicant who has waited longest (paragraph 5.2).
16. But it also says: “applicants living in accommodation that is not suitable will not be given priority above applicants that do not currently have access to adequate housing. This may include those occupying ‘bricks and mortar’ accommodation depending on the circumstances of each case” (paragraph 5.3).
17. It says the Council takes account of individual circumstances when assessing applications. These include local connection to the area; those with medical or welfare needs and those with a ‘social’ need to move. The Council offers some commentary on each of these points (paragraph 5.5).
18. The Council says that after assessment it puts applications in priority bands. It says Band A applicants have “emergency or urgent” status, while those in Band B are “applicants with a local connection”. It does not offer explanation of what applications it considers “emergency or urgent”. Band A applicants have priority (paragraphs 7.1-7.2).
19. The policy includes a sample of the ‘needs assessment form’. This asks questions to find out the applicant’s eligibility to apply and if they have a local connection. It then awards points to applicants based on factors such as children attending local schools; current housing conditions; any medical factors and social factors. Each applicant also receives points for every year they are on the list. The assessment form makes no mention of any banding.

The key facts

20. The events covered by this complaint began in December 2023. At that time, Ms D lived with her partner and her three dependent children, one of whom has a disability in social housing. Ms D had grown up on the caravan site at the crux of this complaint but later decided to move to ‘bricks and mortar’ housing. She told me she regretted this decision and the move had adversely affected her wellbeing. While, Ms C said Ms D had a “cultural aversion” to such housing. Ms D now wanted her children to grow up with their wider family and among their peers in the Gypsy and Traveller community. Ms D said she considered a move would be especially favourable for her disabled child, who would receive support from the community on the site.
21. Around December 2023 the Council decided to create a new caravan pitch at the site. There is no contemporaneous record of the Council telling Ms D that it would allocate the pitch to her. However, there is no dispute this happened. In May 2024, the Head of Service in post in December 2023 confirmed in an email the Council had verbally “offered” the new pitch to Ms D.
22. The former Head of Service explained their rationale as follows:

• that Ms D had the highest priority on the waiting list at the time;
• the Council decided to make the offer before construction of the pitch “to avoid further damage as there would be certainty as to who would be moving on to the pitch”.

23. In January 2024 the Head of Service changed at what was a time of re-organisation and staffing pressure for the Council, when several key posts in its housing service were vacant. The new Head of Service told me they knew of the verbal offer to Ms D. They considered the Council should have told Ms D its offer was conditional on her remaining in the highest priority position on the waiting list, once construction of the plot completed. They said they discussed this with the then housing manager with responsibility for the site. However, the Council had no record of communicating with Ms D before May 2024 to let her know this.
24. Consequently, when the pitch became ready for occupation in May 2024 the Council decided to review its offer. The then Housing Manager considered the Council should allocate the pitch to another applicant who now had a higher priority under the Council’s policy. They consulted the Council’s Director of Housing on what to do.
25. The Director said they considered the Council should allocate the pitch to the applicant with the highest priority. But noting the prior offer to Ms D they also said: “we should either honour this or reevaluate this decision and provide the people we did offer this plot to with a reasonable argument why we cannot now”.
26. After this the Housing Manager and Head of Service made the offer to the other applicant and let Ms D know its decision.
27. Next, Ms D contacted Ms C who then complained on her behalf. In its reply to the complaint, the Council explained why it had decided to allocate the pitch to a different applicant, quoting extracts from the allocation policy. However, it recognised it had previously led Ms D to believe it would allocate the pitch to her. It said “ordinarily” it would never promise or allocate a pitch before it was ready. It expressed regret it could no longer offer the pitch to Ms D and recognised its actions had caused her “disappointment and very understandable confusion”. In recognition of these impacts, it gave an apology and offered a symbolic payment of £300 as a gesture of goodwill. Ms C accepted the payment but pursued her complaint considering this an inadequate remedy.
28. The Council also said that following Ms D’s complaint it recognised the need to review its allocation policy for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites. That work remains ongoing.

My findings

Was the Council at fault?

29. Both sides in this complaint agreed that around December 2023 Ms D received an offer to occupy the pitch the Council wanted to create at the site.
30. It timed the offer to when contractors began work on the site. The former Head of Service provided a clear rationale for the decision, which was as Ms D understood it at the time. The Council wanted to ensure the integrity of the pitch and avoid it suffering any damage or littering while under construction.
31. I considered the Council could choose to do this in line with its allocation policy. The Council commented in reply to Ms D’s complaint that ‘ordinarily’ it would wait for a pitch to be ready for occupation before offering it to anyone. I accepted this was its usual custom and practice. However, its allocation policy did not say at what point it would offer a pitch to someone. So, I considered it was within the Council's discretion, as the policy stood in December 2023, for it to make an offer before the pitch became ready for occupation.
32. I also noted it took this decision at senior level. The policy was silent on who within the Council approved pitch lettings. However, the Council told us it was ultimately a decision for its Head of Service or above. As the Head of Service had decided to offer the pitch to Ms D in December 2023, this too was consistent with its policy.
33. The next point I noted was the Council had not put its offer in writing to Ms D. Nor did it provide her with a tenancy agreement. However, the Council advanced no evidence that its practice was to put offers in writing before acceptance. And I considered it self-evident it would not ask an applicant to sign a tenancy until a pitch became ready for occupation and there was a tenancy start date. So, I could attach little weight to these factors.
34. There was also no suggestion the Council ever attached any conditions to its offer.
35. So, I considered the offer Ms D received was in line with its policy and created a legitimate expectation that she could move on to the pitch once complete.
36. In which case I considered only in exceptional circumstances could the Council withdraw its offer. One circumstance might be if it had made a mistake. If it found that it had offered the pitch in error to someone not entitled to apply, or whose application did not have the highest priority as it understood. But it provided no evidence to suggest such an error here. There was no evidence contradicting the Head of Service’s understanding in December 2023, that Ms D had the highest priority for a pitch at that time.
37. Another circumstance might be if new evidence came to light which meant it should not have offered the pitch to Ms D or that she would no longer be eligible for its waiting list. For example, if it discovered Ms D’s circumstances in December 2023 were not as it understood at the time. Or Ms D or a member of her household became no longer eligible for a pitch for a reason set out in paragraph 5.6 of the policy (see paragraph 12). But there was no evidence these circumstances applied here either.
38. In which case it was fault for the Council not to honour the offer it made to Ms D. It should have allocated the pitch to her when it became ready for occupation in May 2024. It had no valid reason to withdraw that offer.
39. This did not mean I was without sympathy for officers in May 2024. By that time there were other applicants with a higher priority than Ms D and clearly the offer to her was unusual. But that was not the same as finding the offer to her was improper. So, while I understood the instinct to want to offer the pitch to someone else, to do so was demonstrably unfair to Ms D.
40. I also considered the current allocations policy was not clear in some areas and so was not always helpful to officers. My specific concerns were as follows:

• first, as I explained above, it does not make clear when the Council will offer a pitch to an applicant – is it at the point of vacancy or the point when ready for occupation;
• second, it does not explain who decides for the Council on who to allocate the pitch to;
• third, it refers to using both a banding and pointing system to assess priority, but neither the policy nor the needs assessment form explains how it bands applications. It does not say what it considers an emergency or urgent application;
• fourth, it appears contradictory. Paragraph 5.2 states the highest priority goes to the applicant in the highest band with the most points (and explains its tiebreaker criteria where two applicants in the same band have equal points). But paragraph 5.3 suggests the applicant with the most points may not receive an offer if there is another applicant it considers inadequately housed. Although this too is confusing, as the passage refers to households ‘not adequately housed’ having preference over those living in accommodation that is ‘not suitable’. It does not make clear how these terms differ, nor why one might take precedence over the other.

41. I also consider the policy does not explore what “inadequate housing” might mean to members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, who may have a cultural aversion to “bricks and mortar” housing. We do not take a view on whether councils are in breach of the Human Rights Act as that is something for the courts. But we do expect councils to take account of the Act when relevant. I consider in the context of a pitch allocation policy Article 8 may be relevant to those living in bricks and mortar accommodation. Because the test for what forms adequate housing for this group may be different to the population at large. So, may need a different judgement to that used when the Council is carrying out its duties towards those who are homeless.
42. However, for the reasons set out earlier in my findings I did not find the policy so opaque that it could justify nullifying the decision to allocate the pitch to Ms D. Nor did it provide justification for withdrawing that offer.

The injustice caused by the Council’s fault

43. In considering the consequence of the Council’s fault, I recognised it had acknowledged causing Ms D distress. I welcomed that and its apology and symbolic payment intended as a goodwill gesture. But I did not consider these measures went far enough to remedy Ms D’s injustice.
44. This is because I considered a consequence of the fault was that Ms D remained living in ‘bricks and mortar’ housing for longer than would otherwise have been the case. This was because, but for the fault Ms D would have moved on to the site around May 2024. I therefore recommended the Council offer Ms D the next available caravan pitch on the site, to remedy that injustice. This meant Ms D would receive a pitch before other households who now had a higher priority. But this did not equate to Ms D ‘jumping the queue’. The recommendation was simply to put her back in the position she would have been in but for the fault.
45. Finally, I also considered the Council’s offer of a symbolic payment for Ms D’s distress inadequate. Taking account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies I recommended a higher amount. This took account of two factors. First, the immediate distress caused by the Council’s flawed decision. Second, also the distress caused to Ms D by living in accommodation, for a prolonged period of time, she wanted to move away from and would otherwise have done so.

Back to top

Agreed Action

46. The Council accepted the findings set out above. It agreed that to remedy Ms D’s injustice it would undertake the following actions within 20 working days of this decision. That it would:
1. write to Ms D with a further apology accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. make a further symbolic payment to Ms D of £200 (making £500 in total given its earlier payment to her); and
3. commit to offering Ms D the next vacant pitch on the caravan site suitable to meet her needs.
47. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology it has agreed.
48. Part of our role is also to consider how the Council can avoid repeating any fault we identify. In this case I noted the Council had committed to reviewing its Gypsy and Traveller lettings policy and I considered this provided such an opportunity. The Council agreed to complete that review by the end of October 2025, if possible. It is not for me to prescribe the detail of what its final policy should contain, so long as it is lawful. But the Council agreed that its review would encompass the concerns I set out in paragraphs 40 and 41 above. In particular, in respect of the concern set out in paragraph 41, the Council agreed to take a view from its legal officers before it finalised its policy. It also agreed to write to us at the end of the review and explain how it had taken account of our concerns in drafting its new policy.
49. The Council agreed therefore, to provide us with evidence when it had complied with all the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

50. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to take action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman