Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s response to his health and safety concerns following an incident earlier this year. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to deal with the freedom of information issue and it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Mr C is seeking by pursuing his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained about the Council’s response to his health and safety concerns following an incident earlier this year. Mr C told us he remains anxious about the risk of injury to children and other members of the public.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mr C provided and his comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C’s concern was prompted by an incident when an operative was using a strimmer to cut the grass verge. A stone travelled at some velocity to shatter a window several metres above ground level at some distance from the verge. Mr C told us if the stone had hit a person it could have caused severe injury, or even worse. He said he found out from discussions this was not an isolated incident. He told us, when he contacted the Council, its reply suggested it thought such breakages were an acceptable risk.
7. Mr C said he made a Freedom of Information Act request for details of how many such incidents had happened this year. He said the frequency of such incidents was a major concern to him. He told us the Council’s reply did not give him the information he had requested. He complained that the Council had failed to respond to his further request. He said it appears the Council has ignored his request because the deadline for its reply passed a long time ago.
8. When it responded to Mr C’s complaint the Council asked Mr C to be assured it takes safety measures for strimming very seriously. The Council said in its risk assessment it gave debris thrown from the strimmer a red high risk rating, with a medium likelihood and high severity rating. The Council said it had measures in place to reduce these risks to an acceptable level. Its measures include competent, trained staff using the strimmers, fitting strimmer guards, and conducting visual checks of areas for stones before the start of strimming.
9. Mr C has put time and effort into pursuing his concerns following the incident. He wants the Council to conduct an immediate review of health and safety procedures on the use of machinery to make sure that incidents like this never happen again.
10. The Council has taken the measures we would expect. It has already identified strimming as a high-risk activity and has put measures in place to reduce the risks. Those measures are a matter for the professional judgement of the Council’s officers. So it is unlikely we would achieve the outcome Mr C told us he is seeking by pursuing his complaint.
11. Mr C remains concerned about the way the Council dealt with his Freedom of Information Act request. It is reasonable to expect Mr C to refer his freedom of information issue to the Information Commissioner if the Council has failed to resolve it. That is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body with the relevant statutory powers and expertise to deal with this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to deal with the freedom of information issue and it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Mr C is seeking by pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman