Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council taking insufficient action against children playing ball games in the cul de sac where she lives. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complained about the Council failing to take action over children playing ball games in the cul de sac where she lives. She says it sent a letter to residents without mentioning that persons playing football may be fined for breaching the Highways legislation. She wants the Council to rescind the letter and warn residents that they could be fined.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mrs X has commented on a copy of my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X complained to the Council about children playing ball games in the cul de sac where she lives. The Council wrote to her and told her that it did not consider children playing football to be anti-social behaviour or that it was illegal. Mrs X wrote to the Council and said that the Highways Act 1980 stated that anyone playing football on the public highway could be subject to a fine and that the Council’s letter was incorrect.
5. The Highways Act 1980 gives highway authorities the power to prosecute persons playing football on the public highway who cause annoyance to highway users. It does not include complaints about noise or damaging and trespassing on private property. The offence is specific to the use of the highway and not to any anti-social behaviour aspects.
6. In this case the Council is not the highway authority, that is the role of the county council. The Council says it could not speak on behalf of the highway authority because it does not know whether that body would consider this an offence to take action on in such a location.
7. Mrs X contacted the Council to activate the Community Trigger which is an action requiring a council to respond to requests by the public for action on anti-social behaviour. As a result, the Police contacted residents in the vicinity about the ball games by children. The Police concluded that no anti-social behaviour was being experienced by other residents.
8. Many councils advise on their websites that they strike a balance between outdoor activity and nuisance when considering children playing in the street and that they do not consider this to be anti-social behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to Mrs X’s complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman