Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr H’s complaint of it failing to take enforcement action against dwellers of 2 caravans parked on the road near his home. There was a failure to keep records of visits and of officer assessments when deciding the encampment was ‘Low Impact’ under its policy. The Council also failed to communicate with Mr H since April 2021 when a manager retired. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr H complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against the dwellers of two caravans parked on the road near his home: as a result, his amenities are affected as they are unsightly, and cause a danger to pedestrian and road users.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have only investigated the Council’s actions from May 2020. The paragraph at the end of this statement explains why. Reference to any period before this date is included to put the Council’s actions in to context.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

Council policy for Vehicle Dwelling Encampments on Highway

6. This policy was created in partnership with the police.
7. It notes:

• People dwelling in vehicles are not a single homogenous group;
• Some are not lived in, are taxed, and simply parked on the street until needed;
• A ‘vehicle dwelling encampment’ is one or more person living in one or more vehicles or structure on the highway;
• It will balance the rights of those encamped, the landowners, (including the highways authority), lawful users of the highway, and the local community;
• Each individual encampment is considered before taking a decision on whether enforcement action is taken. Each is assessed as either High Impact or Low Impact taking account of factors which include: welfare needs of occupants; the nature, suitability, or obtrusiveness of the encampment; the level of nuisance, the level of damage caused; proximity to residential properties, schools, children’s play, and other public amenities; its size; human and domestic waste arrangement;
• Full assessments of the welfare, education, and health needs of those in encampments will be done before any action is taken;
• High Impact includes those where: there are serious breaches of the peace, disorder, criminal activity, or antisocial behaviour which would need police involvement; it has an unacceptable impact on the environment and local community. For such cases, the Council will take prompt action;
• Low Impact includes those where: the occupier says they will stay only for a short time and are unlikely to cause disruption or damage during their stay; it does not cause significant impact on the local environment or community when measured against the factors listed above. For such cases, the Council may take the decision to tolerate it and take no legal action for the time being;
• The powers available to the Council include: the power to direct unauthorised campers to leave (section 77, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994); serve a notice requiring the removal of obstructions (The Highways Act 1980); restricting access to public spaces (section 59, The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014); power to seize a vehicle; and
• When receiving a report, the Council will arrange welfare assessments, assess whether there is a High or Low Impact of the encampment, consider outreach work referrals, issue/attach warning letters under the 1994 Act as appropriate. It will then monitor for 3 weeks and take action depending on the individual circumstances.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information Mr H sent, including the Council’s response to our enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr H and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr H is unhappy with 2 unhitched caravans parked on his road. He believes one is occupied. Neither has an internal toilet and items are stored round them on the road. These spill on to the pavement causing an obstruction and some danger to pedestrians and road users. He complains about occupiers of the caravan using the nearby park as a toilet. Mr H argues the caravans (vehicles) attract other vehicles to the road. He is unhappy because despite reports, the Council took no action against the dwellers and failed to keep him and other concerned residents updated about action it was, or was not, taking. He wants the Council to let residents know what plans it has about resolving the situation.
10. In response to our enquiries, the Council gave the following information, supported by a visit log and photographs:

2020:

• March: An officer from its neighbourhood enforcement team visited the site and saw the vehicles. The officer decided the site was ‘Low Impact’ as they were not obstructing the highway. The same month, its mapping system went live and included these vehicles on it. The system gives residents access to known encampments in the city and allows them to report occupied vehicles. It also allows them to see when officers first, and last, visited the site.
• April: As the country went in to lockdown, the Council suspended all enforcement action for occupied vehicles. It arranged sites for dwellers to stay free of charge. Officers visited the vehicles but, the occupants refused the offer to move to a site.
• May: Officers again visited the site in response to reports of the occupiers using the church yard as a toilet. They found 4 caravans on the road, all occupied. They also found a rough sleeper in the church door. Officers saw no evidence of human waste but saw clothing and bedding hanging on fencing. All dwellers were given advice about behaviour.
• July: After receiving reports of vehicles being abandoned and falling in to disrepair, officers again visited. They suspected 2 were abandoned and attached ‘Abandoned Vehicle Notices’ (a Notice) to them. These gave the owners 7 days to recover the vehicles.
• September: Mr H complained he had no response to his enquiry about the law concerning caravans. Officers received further reports about the presence of caravans but there were no problems noted by officers who visited. Mr H reported a soiled mattress dumped near the park. An officer told Mr H its response was affected by several legal challenges to enforcement recently but, the possible highway obstruction was reported to the police. The mattress would be removed.

The same month, other vehicles were noted but again there were no problems, and none were parked directly outside homes. An internal email noted the police drove its own large vehicle down the road as a test and had no problem with access. This was after Mr H voiced concerns about emergency services accessing the road.

• November: Officers again found no problems when they visited.
• December: Mr H sent the Council a complaint about its actions.

2021:

• January: Officers visited because of a report of an abandoned caravan and attached a Notice to it. They assessed the encampment as Low Impact as none were parked directly outside homes and the park toilets were open. The Council sent him its stage 1 response to his complaint. It referred to different vehicles on site for the previous 13 months. It explained during the pandemic, some owners left their caravans. The Council offered to store unoccupied ones. It had no evidence of human waste left in the park or residents’ bins.
• February: Officers advised dwellers about waste round the vehicles and screws sticking out of one of them. They were given 7 days to resolve these issues.
• March: Officers found the screws were removed. The Council also sent him its stage 2 response. It agreed it could have communicated more regularly with residents and councillors for which it apologised. It sent him a link to a map which shows when officers last visited the site. It also explained it is working with different groups representing the dwellers to help sign post those needing help for housing support, for example. This is because many are vulnerable and have difficulties accessing support and accommodation. It considered officers had proactively engaged with the dwellers.
• April to June: No issues.
• July: Officers attached another Notice to a vehicle and removed a sofa Mr H reported. The owner of the caravan was just away for a few days.
• August: The dwellers agreed to remove outside waste that had built up.
• September: Officers saw thick acrid smoke from the chimney of one vehicle and there was an issue with waste.

11. The Council also confirmed it received no reports of antisocial behaviour from residents about the dwellers.
12. It explained when officers visit, they photograph all vehicles and obtain details of dwellers if they are willing to provide them. Most refuse to provide details or engage with officers. Officers make notes of any issues and take photographs where any are found. There is no form or sheet to complete on visits as it is for the officer to assess the impact level of each encampment. It is considering introducing an evaluation sheet for each visit.
13. The Council also explained officers record whether a vehicle is occupied or not. The 2 dwellers are known to officers as they were previously encamped in another area. Both are fully compliant with officers and take immediate action when issues are raised. Both were fully assessed in terms of welfare needs and no issues raised.
14. The Council also apologised for the breakdown in communication with Mr H since April 2021, when the manager he contacted retired. The manager’s role has yet to be filled which led to a breakdown in communication with Mr H.

Analysis

15. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. I am satisfied officers responded to reports about the caravans. This is because of the visit log I have seen, and the photographs officers took during those visits.
2. I also note the Covid-19 restrictions have had some impact on the Council’s ability to visit sites.
3. The Council accepts officers are not required to currently complete any sheet or log when they carry out a site visit. It is considering introducing a form for them to complete.
4. I consider the failure to make a record of the officers’ assessment of the encampment is fault. This is because there is no evidence showing what factors set out in the Council’s policy, officers took in to account when deciding the site was Low Impact. There is nothing to show how and why officers reached their decision following each visit. This is fault.
5. In response to my draft decision, the Council explained the dwellers refused all support offered, said they had no welfare needs, needed no help, and refused offers to move to alternative sites. It also said the dwellers were known from a previous encampment where they were visited by officers who did welfare assessments. I remain satisfied the Council failed to provide evidence in support of what it said. Officers failed to make a record of what was said to them during any of their visits. This is fault.
6. The Council also told Mr H during its complaints procedure that it had not communicated as well as it should have done with residents and councillors. In its response to our enquiries, it also accepted communication with Mr H broke down from April 2021 when a manager he used to contact retired. This confirms Mr H’s recent claim he had no contact from the Council since about that time. This is fault.
7. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Mr H an injustice. The failure to make proper records of visits and decisions means he has the uncertainty of not knowing whether they properly took account of the factors listed in the Council’s policy, for example. The failure to properly communicate with Mr H caused him frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of the impact of the Covid-19 restrictions on the Council’s ability to take enforcement action, and the steps it took to provide temporary alternative sites during that period.
17. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr H a written apology for its failure to: keep records of visits and assessment decisions; communicate properly with Mr H over the last 12 months.
2. Review its current practice of officer visit and assessment decisions so proper records are made and retained.
3. Review why there was no communication with Mr H when the manager left to avoid any repetition of this failure in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman found fault on Mr H’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

19. I did not investigate any complaint Mr H may have against the Council that took place before May 2020. This is because Mr H complained to us in May 2021. The law says 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman