Manchester City Council (19 005 246)

Category : Environment and regulation > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 08 Nov 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of this complaint, about the security arrangements for events held in a local park. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Dr N, says the Council’s security arrangements for events in a local park are inadequate. He complains this causes disruption and anti-social behaviour in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I reviewed Dr N’s correspondence with the Council.
  2. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Dr N lives near a large public park. Each year, the park hosts a number of events, including a music festival lasting several days.
  2. On 20 May 2019, Dr N sent a complaint to several bodies, including the office of the Mayor of Greater Manchester. He complained about the upcoming music festival and the disruption and unruly behaviour of those who would be attending. He said this was particularly distressing to the local Jewish community, as it coincided with a religious festival. Dr N asked for security to be stationed at the end of his road throughout the upcoming music festival.
  3. The Mayor’s office forwarded Dr N’s email to Manchester City Council, as the relevant local authority.
  4. The Council replied on 12 June. It acknowledged that additional events had been added to the park’s calendar this year, and accepted the disruption this would likely cause residents. The Council said it had dedicated additional resources to manage and mitigate anti-social behaviour and other problems caused by the events.
  5. The Council said it had received a number of similar comments from the Jewish community. It said it had increased security in the local area followings its consultation with the community, and that the security would be encouraging attendees to stick to the main roads when leaving events.
  6. The Council also said a number of roads would be closed to non-residents and listed these, and that both police and security would be stationed in the area to respond to concerns and incidents from residents. It said it was pleased there had been no reports of anti-Semitic incidents after two recent events. The Council reassured Dr N it took the impact on local residents of these events seriously, and encouraged him to contact the Council to report any issues which arose.
  7. On 16 June, Dr N contacted the Mayor’s office again. He said there had been disruption and damage to property that evening following an event, and asked to speak personally to the Mayor.
  8. On 17 June, the Council emailed Dr N. It explained the Mayor’s office was part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and that he was not responsible for the Council’s decisions. The Council said Dr N could submit a Stage 2 complaint if he was dissatisfied with the original response.
  9. On 17 June, Dr N submitted a Stage 2 complaint. He said the additional security measures imposed by the Council had proved inadequate, and that the stewards had refused to intervene in the disruption in his road. Dr N noted advice had been given to the local Jewish community to avoid a particular road, which he considered unjust because it was their home. He also said this isolated community members who actually lived on that road.
  10. Dr N questioned whether the local community was allowed any say in the decision to hold events in the park, and questioned the necessity of holding the events. He also raised an additional point about members of the local Muslim community receiving penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking in the area during Friday prayers.
  11. The Council replied on 26 June. It described again the additional security measures it had taken and its consultation with the local community. The Council explained its stewards were positioned to prevent non-residents’ vehicles from accessing residential streets, and to discourage pedestrian access. It said there was a “roaming patrol” but its main focus was on the access points.
  12. The Council accepted the events cause disruption to the local community, but said the park would continue to be used for this purpose. It said it worked to improve its operations each year to mitigate the impact.
  13. The Council said local residents visiting the mosque on Friday for prayers would not have received PCNs, because they were part of the local permit scheme. It said it had provided the mosque with additional permits for non-residents, and had remained in touch with the mosque across the relevant dates. The Council said it was not aware of any PCNs being issued to those attending the mosque.
  14. The Council reiterated it recognised the disruption caused by events in the park, but said it took local concerns seriously and worked to mitigate problems as much as possible.
  15. Dr N referred his complained to the Ombudsman on 1 July.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is to review local authorities’ adherence to procedure when making decisions. If there is administrative fault in how the Council has made a decision, the Ombudsman can criticise this. However, the Ombudsman cannot make policy decisions on the Council’s behalf, and cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with the Council’s decision.
  2. In this case, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint. It is for the Council to decide whether it is appropriate to hold events in the park; and it is for the Council to decide how best to deploy security staff. It responded to Dr N’s complaints very promptly, explained the steps it had taken before and during the events to manage disruption, and advised him how to report issues if necessary. There is nothing the Ombudsman can add to this.
  3. I recognise, as the Council also says, such events will inevitably cause disruption to local residents. This is unfortunate, and I appreciate why it causes distress to Dr N. However, that fact alone does not mean there is administrative fault in the Council’s actions, and without this, I am unable to uphold his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

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