Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take account of its Public Sector Equality Duty when it decided to place barriers on a path near his home. Mr X also complained the Council failed to respond to his request to lower kerbs and has blacklisted him from engaging with public Council functions. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to obstruct public footpaths in his local area. Mr X says the Council has failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and its Public Sector Equality Duty when making these decisions and it means he is unable to access the local area in his mobility scooter. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to respond to his request to lower kerbs in the local area to make it more accessible and has blacklisted him from engaging with public Council functions.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2023, meaning anything that took place prior to July 2022 has been raised late.
8. In his complaint, Mr X refers to sanctions and restrictions the Council has placed on him which date back to 2016. However, I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to look back further than July 2022.
9. Since we have been investigating this complaint, Mr X has raised further issues about the sanctions the Council has placed on him. The Council issued a final response to Mr X in May 2023, prior to him contacting our service. We cannot usually investigate complaints until a Council has had a chance to consider them and give its view. If Mr X wants to raise a complaint about events that have taken place since May 2023, he should first bring these to the Council so it can respond.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Mr X has provided about his complaint. I also considered information received from the Council.
11. Mr 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

Relevant legislation

12. Councils have a general duty, when providing services, to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder. This includes the power to provide rails, barriers, and fences to safeguard people lawfully using the road or path.
13. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
14. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
15. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Equality Act 2010 include disability.
16. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
17. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations in the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these to be kept under review.

What happened

Installation of chicane barriers

18. Mr X relies on a mobility scooter to move around and access his local area.
19. In response to a fatal road traffic accident involving a motorbike that mounted the pavement, the Council considered if it could put measures in place to avoid a similar situation.
20. The Council identified a pedestrian access bridge close to Mr X’s home that was reportedly used by motorbikes to move between two areas. One side of the bridge was already obstructed by a guardrail, but the other side remained open, and the Council decided to explore ways to restrict access further.
21. The Council decided to install chicane barriers to the open side of the access bridge and carried out a site visit to determine the best positioning of these.
22. The Council has said it designed the chicane barriers with average wheelchair and mobility scooter dimensions in mind. The Council judged that the bridge would be accessed on a daily basis by a wide demographic of people using various local facilities, so it was not necessary to carry out a consultation but would instead monitor any feedback received.
23. Once they were in place, Mr X contacted the Council and asked it to remove the chicane barriers as they prevented him from making use of the bridge on his mobility scooter.
24. The Council asked Mr X for the make and model of his mobility scooter so it could determine its dimensions and consider whether the spacing of the chicane barriers would be sufficient to allow him access. On comparing the size of Mr X’s mobility scooter with the space between the chicane barriers, the Council decided Mr X would be able to make full use of the access bridge.
25. Mr X wrote to the Council to complain. He explained he was unhappy the Council had not met him on the site to see how the chicane barriers obstructed access to his mobility scooter. Mr X said the Council had blocked a public right of way and asked it to remove the barrier.
26. The Council said it had not agreed to meet with Mr X on site, but it had attended to measure the dimensions of the chicane barriers. The Council acknowledged the barriers would make access less convenient, but said it was still passable when considering the dimensions of Mr X’s mobility scooter. It explained the barriers were installed to deter anti-social behaviour, and so far, it had only received a positive response so did not intend to remove them.
27. Mr X complained to the Council again. He said the chicane barrier restricted his access through the bridge and needed to be removed as it infringed on his rights as a disabled person.
28. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint, explaining the chicane barrier was put in place in response to the antisocial use of scrambler motorbikes in the area. The Council said it had not closed a Public Right of Way and told Mr X he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
29. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained Mr X told it over the phone in he was almost late to a doctor appointment after having to navigate the chicane barriers. The Council has said this is indicative that he can use the bridge, it just takes more time than it did before. Mr X has said the Council misunderstood this conversation and he actually has never attempted to navigate the chicane barriers.
30. The Council also said to date it has only received one objection to the newly installed chicane barriers, and this was from Mr X.

Request to drop kerbs

31. Mr X wrote to the Council asking it to lower kerbs in the area to road level for pedestrian safety reasons and to prevent damage to suspension, bicycle wheels and prams.
32. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request to lower kerbs in the area and said it would carry out a site visit to consider if there was a need for pedestrian access improvements.
33. The Council has said that an engineer has visited the site Mr X referred to but did not identify any need for improvement to pedestrian access.
34. The Council has said the areas described by Mr X already have dropped kerbs and tactile paving. The Council has said, if Mr X can provide more specific details as to where he thinks improvements may be needed, it would be happy to revisit and reassess this.
35. In response to a draft of this decision, the Council has said it has now agreed to lower some kerbs in the area.

Blacklist

36. As set out above, Mr X’s complaint about restrictions the Council has placed on him, runs back to 2016 but I have only considered matters that have occurred since July 2022.
37. Mr X wrote to the Council to complain in September 2022. He said the CEO of the Council operated a blacklist which should be abolished as it prevented residents from participating in local government activities. Mr X’s complaint also referred to the Council’s refusal to meet with him.
38. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained the Council would only engage with Mr X in writing and it had already informed him of this. The Council said there was no blacklist, as referred to by Mr X, but it did action sanctions as to how Mr X could contact it for reasons it had previously discussed with him.
39. In response to our enquiries the Council has said it does not operate a blacklist, but Mr X is aware he has been under sanctions since 2016.

Analysis

Installation of chicane barriers

40. If there is no fault in the way a council reached a decision, the Ombudsman cannot question the decision itself.
41. The Council decided to place barriers to deter antisocial behaviour in the area. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make so I do not find it at fault here.
42. The Council explained it considered average sizes of wheelchairs, and mobility scooters when deciding the spacing of the barriers. The Council properly considered the matter of accessibility and had due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty. I do not find the Council at fault.
43. While Mr X disagrees and says it limits his ability to make use of the bridge, there is no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about installing the barriers or where to locate them, so I cannot question the decisions.
44. When Mr X complained to the Council, it considered the dimensions of his mobility scooter against the dimensions of the barriers it had put in place. The Council decided the bridge was still accessible to Mr X, albeit less conveniently than before the barriers were put in place, and I do not find fault with its decision-making process here.

Request to drop kerbs

45. After receiving Mr X’s request to lower kerbs in the local area, the Council sent an engineer to visit the relevant sites. They told the Council there were already sufficient lowered kerbs in place and there was no need for further improvement. I find the Council followed a proper decision-making process and is not at fault here.
46. The Council has now agreed to lower some kerbs in the area and if Mr X wants to provide more specific details about where he feels dropped kerbs are needed, he is free to contact the Council again.

Blacklist

47. The Council has said it has placed sanctions on Mr X, but these predate the start point of my investigation.
48. Mr X alleges the Council also operates a blacklist which restricts his use of Council facilities. The Council has said no such blacklist exists, and I have seen no evidence to doubt this. I do not find the Council at fault here.
49. From what I have seen, the Council engages with communication from Mr X and I do not find it at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I do not find the Council at fault and I have ended my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman