London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 008 789)

Category : Environment and regulation > COVID-19

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 25 Jan 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider its public sector equality duty when deciding to close a local park. This is because the decision did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to consider its public sector equality duty (PSED) in deciding to close a park and later to allow restricted opening hours to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

  1. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. In March 2020 the Council decided to close a park to limit the spread of COVID-19. It says members of the public were gathering in large numbers in the park and were not adhering to social distancing guidelines. It made its decision “in conjunction with the Police to maintain public health.” It later decided to reopen the park with restricted opening hours.
  2. Mr X believes the Council’s decisions disproportionately affected young people and young families. He made a ‘freedom of information’ request to the Council for evidence to show how it considered its PSED when making its decisions. The Council’s response explained it did not hold the information requested as its PSED did not apply.
  3. Mr X disagrees with the Council and questions how it could reach a view that its PSED did not apply when it did not consider the issue. He says young people have suffered the most from COVID-19 restrictions but are at very low risk from the virus. He also suggests young people suffer most from the decision to close the park early, as they are more likely to have to work and look after young children.
  4. The park provided an area for people of all age groups to visit but it is not the only place available for members of the public to exercise. The Council’s decision to close the park did not prevent Mr X from exercising outside his home and did not cause him significant personal injustice.
  5. The Council has also provided a detailed explanation to Mr X setting out why it does not consider its PSED applied in this case. Its reasons are clear and rational and it is not for us to say they are wrong. The Council took steps it considered necessary to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19 as a public health emergency and it is unlikely we could say that had it considered its PSED at the time, its decision would or should have been different.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s decision did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings