Telford & Wrekin Council (20 014 394)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleges it failed to hold the owner of a caravan park to account for various breaches of the site conditions.
The complaint
- I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains that the Council failed to hold the owner of a caravan park to account for various breaches of the site conditions. Mr X complains about:
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
- 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- If we are satisfied with a council’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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone.
What I found
The Council’s warning to Mr X about the persistence of contact from him
- The Council responded in April 2021 to a complaint made by Mr X in January 2021.
- Before the Council set out its response to the substantive issues of Mr X’s complaint, it warned him that it would not correspond with him as the representative of site residents. It referred to a letter it sent him in November 2019 in which it warned him that persistent contact about historic issues would lead to reinstatement of a single point of contact as it had done in the past. It said it would respond on that occasion but would not do so again in line with the position set out in its November 2019 letter. It asked Mr X to use its contact centre instead of emails its officers directly.
- Mr X says the Council blocked emails from him when he was the secretary of the park residents’ association and so he had to resign as secretary. Mr X says he is the only resident with the knowledge and willingness to hold the Council to account.
- Mr X has complained to the Ombudsman on four other occasions concerning enforcement matters at the park.
- I do not find fault by the Council because it warned Mr X about the persistence of his contact. While Mr X considers that enforcement matters are ongoing it is not unreasonable for the Council to conclude it would not go over historic matters again. The warning is in line with its policy on persistent contacts.
The overhead electricity cables
- The Council visited the site and also checked the safety of the cables with the power company. The power company was satisfied the cables were safe. It told Mr X it would not pursue the matter further.
- Mr X says he accepts the power company’s stance on the matter even though it is at variance with the company’s previous comments. Mr X maintains the matter still has to be resolved as he would not like to live in a metal roofed home under mains electricity cables.
- I do not find fault with the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s concerns about this matter or its response.
A northern boundary fence
- The Council told Mr X its planning team would look into completion of the fence when it responded to his complaint. The Council has since confirmed the site owner’s proposal to erect a fence is acceptable to it. The site owner provided a timetable for completion of works to the Council.
Expired public liability insurance
- The Council told Mr X that the site operator is not currently required to publicly display a copy of his public liability insurance. Nonetheless the Council asked for a copy for its records and confirmed the insurance is in order.
- Mr X insists the insurance expired and says the Council should include this item at its annual site licence inspection.
- I do not find fault with the Council’s inspection or explanation.
Armco barriers
- Mr X says the barriers are required under the site licence conditions to protect the amenity of a particular resident who lives close to the road. The Council responded to Mr X on this matter in 2015 and 2016. Its position on the barriers has not changed despite Mr X maintaining there is a need for enforcement.
- This is not a new matter that will now be considered by this service. Mr X is aware of the Council’s longstanding position on the matter. I do not find it now warrants consideration because Mr X maintains his disagreement with the Council.
Surface drainage
- The Council says it inspected the site several times and did not find any significant amount of standing water. In terms of road safety it advised Mr X that drivers should observe appropriate caution in wet or icy conditions. It noted the road has a speed limit and one way system. It observed debris in drains during an inspection and asked the site operator to clean out the drains. It noted the ongoing issue of some homes not been connected to the sewer system and said it would explore the issue with the owner
- Mr X says a drain hole at the end of a link road is not connected to the sewer system. He maintains the area floods under heavy rain and freezes in winter.
- I do not find fault with the Council’s approach.
Road markings
- Mr X says the site licence requires “No entry” to be painted on the road but the Council accepted the site operator’s decision not to paint the signs on the road and this is irresponsible. Mr X says the one way road is often blocked and residents had to go the wrong way round during a recent road closure for the siting of new homes.
- The Council’s view on this matter was conveyed to Mr X in 2017. It is not a new matter which now warrants consideration by the Ombudsman given it was raised by Mr X previously in his complaints to this service.
Substandard bases for chalets
- Mr X maintains there are homes which have substandard bases and wants the pads removed and re-laid.
- The Council disagreed with Mr X’s view on the safety of the pads. It said it would consider pad maintenance on inspections. It referred to one home raised by Mr X in which it asked the owners whether they wanted an inspection but the owners declined an inspection. Mr X says the owners did not want an inspection because they were moving away and the new owner could hold the Council negligent in its duty of care.
- I do not find fault with the Council’s explanation or approach. If there are owners who are concerned about the safety of their homes including the pads then those owners can approach the Council directly for inspections of their homes.
Common areas
- Mr X refers here to reduced turning area for vehicles visiting some of the homes. Mr X says one of the homes was not moved 18 inches forward as the Council says it was. Mr X says the Council should ask the site operator to move the home to within the site licence parameters.
- I note Mr X’s disagreement with the Council’s judgement. I do not find fault because Mr X considers the Council’s judgement was wrong. It is not for the Ombudsman to adjudicate a dispute about whether a Council’s judgement is right or wrong. We will examine the process leading up to that judgement to see if there was fault in the process. Here, the Council inspected the site and then reached a judgement on the issue raised by Mr X. That is not fault.
Final decision
- I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman