Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action to ensure the security of the alleyway behind his house. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to take action to secure the alleyway adjacent to his property which means he is more at risk from crime and anti-social behaviour. He says it should complete the railings to run along the boundary of a business which has a low wall where criminals can gain access to the alleyway.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B lives in a row of houses behind which an alleyway runs. In 2004 the Council gated both ends of the alleyway under a stopping up order so it no longer has highway status. When this happens the land previously highway returns to the respective landowners.
5. In 2009 the fence belonging to a business which has a boundary running along part of the alleyway was reduced in height. As a result it is easy to climb over the low fence and into the alleyway.
6. Mr B has been complaining about this matter for a number of years because he believes it is a security risk to his property. He submitted a recent complaint to the Council and asked it to take action to complete the railings where the low fence runs.
7. The Council considered his complaint under its complaints procedure. It set out the action it had taken in the past and under what legislation. However, it explained that the fence is private property belonging to the business and that the Council does not have any legal power to require the business owner to restore the fence to its former height.
8. It explained it had asked the business owner about the fence but had been told there were no plans to change it. It also spoke to the police who checked their records and advised that there did not appear to be a high level of crime or anti-social behaviour which could be related to the alleyway specifically. The police said they had no powers to compel the business to change the fence but that they would speak to the owner about it in order to improve security.
9. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint and it found no fault in the actions of its service.

Assessment

10. I understand the Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint is disappointing. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault in the way it has dealt with the matter. It properly sought advice from its Legal Team about its options but it has concluded that it has no powers to take action itself and it cannot require the land owner to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman