Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about motorbikes in a local park. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains the Council failed to take action to stop motorbikes from entering a local park due to broken entrance barriers.
2. Mr X says he has been caused stress and his safety placed at risk due to speeding motorbikes when he visits the park. He would like the Council to install secure barriers and also improve the accuracy of its complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is concerned about his safety when using the local park due to the risk posed by speeding motorbikes. Mr X says the motorbikes are gaining access via broken and missing fences/barriers.

7. The Council’s first complaint response said the parks manager will replace fencing which had been removed. And that another meeting will be arranged (to replace a recently cancelled one) to address fencing/barriers for the other entrances to the park.
8. At stage two of its complaints process, the Council apologised for the delay on the work on its barriers and it partially upheld Mr X’s complaint.
9. The Council explains, due to current financial restrictions, new procurement processes are in place for all requests which impacts time taken. It says additional work must be priced and approved through a spend board.
10. The Council informed Mr X the vandalised fencing was dealt with, but the delay is due to the new process required by the current financial restrictions. The Council also informed Mr X that he could report the motorbikes to the Police.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. We will not investigate. The Council’s delay in replacing/installing fencing, as admitted to in its complaint’s response, has not caused any significant personal injustice to Mr X.
13. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s complaints handling as it has admitted the delays installing/replacing fencing for which it has partially upheld Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate as there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman