A complaint about the unlawful occupation of land by two Gypsy families remained unresolved after 16 years.
An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman into events since May 2003 (because of legal restrictions) found that Tandridge District Council failed to take decisive action. As a result, a couple who lived next to the land continued to suffer nuisance.
Since 1990, Mr F had been complaining to the Council about failure to take enforcement action, but, despite the Council's attempts to take action, the Gypsies were still there 16 years later. He said that he and his wife endured years of harassment and abuse.
Following a landmark House of Lords decision (the 'Porter' case), concerning human rights issues in May 2003, the Council should have decided whether to take legal action, and if it decided to do so, it should have done so promptly. It decided to take legal action, but three years later no action had been taken. The Council rightly sought to address the Gypsies' human rights, but paid little heed to those of Mr and Mrs F.
In his report, Ombudsman Tony Redmond said that the Council failed to apply clear timescales for action, focus and drive. The matter was simply allowed to drift:
"Delay itself puts successful court action at risk, since the longer the families remain on the site and the more established they become, the harder it may be to persuade a court to remove them."
The Ombudsman found this delay was maladministration, and said:
"I am only considering the impact of the delay since May 2003 but I must bear in mind the extraordinary context in which this complaint has been made."
In view of the history, it was reasonable to expect prompt action following the 'Porter' case. Instead, over three years later, Mr and Mrs F were still in the same position. They described the effect on them of the presence of the two Gypsy families, and they continued to suffer while the situation remained unresolved.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:
set and keep to a short timescale for considering the recent legal advice and making a final decision on legal action, and, if that decision is to continue, set and keep to a short timescale for commencing legal action;
review the way it deals with complex planning and legal matters; and
pay £3,000 compensation to Mr Fox, comprising £2,500 for outrage, distress and inconvenience over the past three years and £500 for his time and trouble.
Local Government Ombudsman Report 05/C/15987
The Council had served "stop" notices, under its planning powers, directed to ending the use of land for stationing travellers' caravans. No equivalent stop notice could be served to prohibit occupation of conventional housing.
The claimant sought a Declaration of Incompatibility, in that this amounted to discrimination against travellers contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the rejection of that claim. Although there had been discrimination between occupiers of static and mobile homes, the Government had successfully established that it was proportionate and justified.
R(Wilson) v Wychavon DC [2006] EWCA Civ 52, 6 February 2007
Doncaster Council refused planning permission to a group of gypsies to occupy land in the green belt.
On appeal, a planning inspector granted personal planning permission only and subject to a condition that the land be restored when vacated. The Council appealed.
The Judge rejected that appeal, ruling that the inspector had correctly directed herself to the facts, the law and the relevant Circular. She had been entitled to find that there was no realistic prospect of any other reasonable sites becoming available on which the gypsies could station their homes
Doncaster MBC v First Secretary of State [2007] All ER (D) 218 (Feb), 19 February 2007