Summary: X complained about the Council’s communication with them about their application for a site plot and questioned if it fairly followed its allocation scheme. We found the Council at fault for poor communication, poor record keeping and failure to demonstrate transparency with its allocation decisions. This caused significant frustration and uncertainty to X. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise their injustice. It has agreed to review its allocation scheme and make changes to how it retains records when administering the scheme.

The complaint

1. X complains about the Council’s handling of their application for a traveller site plot, along with concerns of how it operates or follows its own allocation scheme. It has now since said they do not meet the criteria to be considered for a plot after several years on the waiting list. This has caused X significant frustration, distress and inconvenience which was impacted on their mental health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the complaint with X and considered their views and information they provided.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

The Council’s plot allocation scheme for Gypsy and Traveller sites

7. The Council’s scheme (at the time of writing) says vacant plots will be allocated to those on its site waiting list, in accordance with the allocation criteria, based on need, links to the area and personal and other relevant circumstances. It said it recognised, however, because of the particular circumstances of the community, it is necessary to operate a flexible scheme.
8. It says an applicant can express a preference for a particular site or sites but will in any event be placed on the general site waiting list.
9. It says it expects applicants to maintain at least annual contact with the Council, or be available to respond to requests from it, with the purpose of obtaining updated information on their circumstances. It would make contact via any contact details provided by applicants in their application form. So it was also the applicant’s responsibility to notify the Council of any contact changes.
10. It would generally consider up to eight applicants for a vacant plot. Applications would be assessed and scored (between 1 to 10) against the below criteria. The score is then multiplied by the applicable percentage weighting.
• 20% weight: Related/close family connection to existing resident(s)
• 20% weight: Residing in, or previously resided/resorted to Surrey, and specific area where the site is located
• 15% weight: Family make-up (such as children and so on)
• 10% weight: Years on waiting list
• 20% weight: Present circumstances (including health and welfare issues)
• 10% weight: Relevant history (including known to Site Manager)
• 5% weight: In receipt of Income, Housing Benefit and ability to pay
11. It says it may consider other relevant issues, such as compatibility with existing residents and impact on site.
12. It says it would consider the links an applicant has to the specific site and/or prioritise applicants already resident and/or with links to the Surrey area. It required evidence to support this.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

13. We issued guidance relating to Principles of Good Administrative Practice, updated in January 2025. This outlines our expectations and standards behind good administrative practice for councils. One principle is “being open and accountable”. This includes:
• Being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete.
• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions.
• Handling information properly and appropriately.
• Keeping proper and appropriate records.

Background – prior to 2024

14. The chronology below is put together through email evidence X provided. The Council could not provide this as it has limited, or has not retained, records of contact with X before their 2024 complaint. Y acted as X’s representative.
15. Years ago, X emailed the Council their application for a plot. X wrote they had evidence but did not know how to attach this.
16. Two days later, the Council confirmed to X they filled the form in correctly. X asked to speak to someone about their application. The Council said it operated by email only and additional information needed to be in writing.
17. Two years later, X asked the Council about their position on the waiting list. Late the next year, X forwarded their original application to the Council.

What happened – summary of key relevant events since 2024

18. In 2024, X emailed the Council asking for help with the waiting list. The next month, X asked the Council for a call about their application and allocation criteria.
19. Months later, X emailed the Council asking for an update on any plots. X asked to go through the allocation scheme to make sure it had all the updates needed to calculate X’s points. I cannot see the Council responded to this.
20. The next month, X emailed their original application to the Council with updated information. The officer said it was missing documents. X sent these. The Council confirmed it had updated their application. X asked for an explanation of how it considered the eight applicants for a plot (see Paragraph 10). The Council referred X to its allocation scheme online.
21. Months later, X texted the Council about their application. I have seen a screenshot of a note stating the Council received additional information from X earlier that month with an update to their circumstances.
22. X made a formal complaint. X did not think the allocation scheme was being used correctly or plots allocated fairly.
23. Days later, the Council responded at Stage 1. It was satisfied it had acted in line with the allocation scheme. It had no available plots and X was on the waiting list with many others in similar situations. If one became available, it would consider X’s application. It did not uphold the complaint.
24. Y emailed the Council with questions about the waiting list. The Council said there were 110 on it.
25. The next month, X contacted the Council about any empty plots. It confirmed no available plots at the time. It was aware of X’s updated information for future allocations. It confirmed X had not missed out on a plot.
26. The Council responded to X’s complaint at Stage 2. It said it had 73 on the waiting list and allocated 5 plots in the last 3 years. It did not find fault with how it had managed X’s application and explained the criteria ratings. It confirmed X provided evidence and had 36.5 points. As X lived outside the border of the Council area, it said X did not score anything on its matrix.
27. Y challenged some of this through email. The Council said due to where X lived, X’s application would not progress. It did this as an exercise to show how X would score if X was a resident. Its practice was to score residents who meet the criteria and X did not qualify to be considered. In March 2025, X complained to us.

My findings and analysis

The Council’s response to my enquiries

28. I made enquiries of the Council around its allocation scheme, and I had concerns with some of the responses it gave. I expand further on this below with examples and reasons.
29. The Council said to me it would identify the most suitable tenant for a specific plot. The selection process is not based on assessed need, but the chosen tenant must align with the characteristics of that site. This is to help maintain harmony within the community. When a plot becomes available, those whose circumstances best align with the criteria are shortlisted for further assessment at an allocation meeting. An initial screening process helps the panel identify applicants who are most likely to meet the criteria. These applicants are then assessed and scored.
• This, and the above processes, are not outlined in its allocation scheme. On plain reading of the scheme, it is not clear that it does not score applications when received (which would be a reasonable assumption), but only when an applicant is shortlisted. There does not appear to be positions on the waiting list.
• But the scheme also does not refer to any initial screening. It does not explain what degree of the 'criteria’ needs to be met for any or each specific site when it chooses which eight applicants it will consider as ‘suitable’, and that is the point when they will be scored.
• If this is how the Council is operating the scheme, it needs to make this clear in plain language. I cannot see there is a clear transparent process of how it selects the eight applicants for a site. This is fault.
30. Then, at the point an applicant is scored, 1 to 10 points can be given for each criteria (see Paragraph 10). I asked the Council how it ensured consistency across these and if there was guidance on what specifically, or examples of, what would warrant low or high points for each criteria. The Council said the criteria was subject to ongoing review and minor adjustments made as part of this.
• This did not answer my specific enquiry. If there is no guidance, then I am not satisfied the Council can show how each applicant’s scores can be seen to be consistent, objective, or fair. This is fault.
31. The Council could not provide information about past allocations it had made based on what scorings. It said once an allocation meeting has concluded, the information is no longer needed as details would be irrelevant to future decisions.
• This is poor record keeping. The records would show relevant evidence from the time to show how its previous decisions were made. Without these records, it cannot demonstrate transparency and fairness. This is fault.
32. The Council said it does not maintain ongoing records of applicant contact beyond the initial application and it does not routinely follow up with applicants to check for changes. It is the responsibility of each applicant to update their application as their circumstances change. It retains documents for six months.
• This is not in line with its allocation scheme (see Paragraph 9). This says applicants should keep in contact once a year, but also the Council itself would contact applicants to get updates.
• In addition, if the Council does not maintain records after six months, then it would not be able monitor dates of when it should expect, or when it should initiate, contact with applicants. This is fault.
33. The Council told X it had 110 on its waiting list, then a month later it said it had 73. It said to X it had allocated 5 plots since 2022. It said to me it had allocated 17 plots since 2021.
• The Council has given different and contradictory answers to the same questions. This is poor communication. It has not explained these discrepancies and raises questions about the accuracy of its responses. This is fault.

Communication with X

34. The Council’s final complaint response to X said they did not qualify to be considered due to where they lived. This understandably led X to believe it meant they are not eligible for a plot at all, resulting in wasted time and frustration. However, in response to me, the Council confirmed X remains on the waiting list. It said residency is not required to join the waiting list, but applicants need to meet evidence requirements to be considered for a plot allocation. It has not specifically said what X failed to provide. This is poor communication. It did not explain this to X clearly at the time, causing unnecessary confusion and further frustration.
35. Following on from this, the Council said it had a lack of evidence from X. It said X completed the form themselves and they were unsigned. But had X engaged with the Council, it would have explained the process and eligibility to X directly. Without this, X missed the opportunity for the Council to clarify specific criteria such as documentation requirements.
• I disagree with part of the Council’s position on this. Evidence shows the Council confirmed with X that their application was filled in correctly when first submitted. It did not follow up on X’s request for help to send evidence or say it needed anything else.
36. But I accept the allocation scheme (which is publicly available and accessible) says it needs supporting evidence from applicants. While the Council may not have specifically asked X for this, there is some onus on X to send it or chase up again if X wanted their supporting evidence considered in the intervening years.
37. From evidence provided by X, I can see they contacted the Council at least annually for a few years, but I cannot see X specifically updated their application or sent other supporting documents until mid-2024. So I cannot say the Council failed to update X’s application before this.

Summary

38. The Council is entitled to determine how it allocates plots within its own allocation scheme. However, the scheme should be clear, fair and transparent. As outlined above, the Council is at fault as it has not followed its own scheme at times. It is also poorly drafted as it does not clearly explain relevant processes of when points are scored or how it decides a shortlist of applicants. Its poor record keeping by not retaining relevant records, or for long enough, means it cannot demonstrate transparency in how it administratively operates its scheme. It is not open or accountable - this is not in line with our guidance on principles of good administrative practice (see Paragraph 13).
39. I now consider what personal injustice this has caused to X. The Council’s fault includes vagueness with processes, how it applies its allocation criteria and a lack of records. Due to this, I cannot say, even on balance of probabilities, if it was likely X missed out on a plot offer. However, this creates significant uncertainty for X about what could have happened had it not been for this. This is also in addition to frustration and distress caused with elements of poor communication the Council had with X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

40. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
41. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified;
• Pay X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise their frustration, distress and uncertainty; and
• Contact X to give them the opportunity to send any further evidence and if necessary, advise and explain to X the types of supporting evidence they may need. It should ensure it adds this to their application.
42. Within six months of the final decision, it should consider our guidance on the Principles of Good Administrative Practice and:
1. It should review and revise its allocation scheme, to include clear information and details of processes. Including when and how applicants and scored and explanations of how specific applicants are shortlisted;
2. It should review and include processes of how it records the allocation of future plots to allow oversight and ensure it can evidence its decisions in line with its updated scheme;
3. It should review its retention policies to ensure it keeps records for an appropriate amount of time;
4. It should ensure it has a system in place to record and monitor dates of contact it should make with its applicants in line with its scheme;
5. It should create an internal guidance note to explain what would warrant a high or low score for each allocation criteria to ensure consistency across applicants; and
6. It should write to all applicants on its waiting list to advise of any changes it makes to its allocation scheme and the reasons for these.
7. It should send the LGSCO an update at the three-month point with evidence of what progress it has made on this by that time.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman