The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council has not taken enforcement action to ensure the site owner does work to the base on which their mobile home is installed. They have also applied to a Tribunal to determine what action the site owner should take. I have decided to exercise our discretion not to investigate this complaint. The Tribunal is better placed to provide the remedy and for the Ombudsman to also investigate the matter would not be a good use of public resources.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs B complain about how the Council has dealt with their concerns about the base of their mobile home. In particular they say the Council failed to: properly consider enforcement action; and failed to give clear guidance on this matter in its informal action.
Mr and Mrs B say the Council’s shortcomings means that the site owner has not taken action and this has caused damage to his home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs B. I considered the information provided by the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s guidance to his investigators. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered Mr and Mrs B’s comments on the draft.
What I found
The law and guidance Where a local authority considers that a site owner is failing or has failed to comply with a condition of the site licence, it can serve a compliance notice on the site owner directing it to take action to remedy this.
If following a dispute, a homeowner and a site operator are not able to negotiate a settlement, they can apply to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination.
What happened Mr and Mrs B live in their mobile home on a residential site. The Council issued the site licence in 2014. Under this, the site owner is responsible for the maintenance of the concrete base on which Mr and Mrs B’s mobile home is placed. Mr B says that he found in September 2016 that the base had dropped by 1.5 inches. He reported this to the Council. Over the years this has got worse and he says the whole home leans substantially to one side. Mr B says the site owner had agreed to monitor it but did not.
In October 2020, Mr and Mrs B commissioned a survey. This showed an average brick course level deficiency of 30mm from front to rear.
In November 2020, Mr and Mrs B instructed a barrister. They wrote to the site owner and the Council. Mr B told the Council that the owner’s workmen had visited twice. The Council visited the site in January 2021 and decided to give the site owner a further opportunity to rectify any problems with the base. The owners surveyor visited the site and suggested that the supporting jacks be tightened and that levelling the base could be done if there was further movement.
Mr and Mrs B continued to liaise with the Council and the site owner. However, in October 2021 they found they were making no progress and disputed the recommendations of the site owner’s surveyor.
In December 2021, Mr and Mrs B brought a claim to the First Tier Tribunal against the site owner. They have had to pay for and submit their own independent site survey as part of these proceedings.
Mr and Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had failed to take action, or clearly direct the site owner to act to resolve the problem.
My analysis Mr and Mrs B have taken this matter to the Tribunal in order to settle the dispute about the extent of the problem and to ensure the site owner remedies this. I appreciate the Tribunal will not direct the Council to take action, however, Mr and Mrs B are asking the Ombudsman to consider the same issues and whether the Council should take action on the basis of this.
For this reason, I have decided to exercise our discretion not to investigate this matter further. The Tribunal is better placed to provide Mr and Mrs B a remedy and it is not a good use of public resources for two publicly funded bodies to investigate the same issue.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman