Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s process for replacing a corroded handrail, its current inspection and maintenance system, or its communications and complaint-handling. None of the issues relating to the handrail and the Council’s maintenance scheme cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting investigation. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling and correspondence where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a coastal town. He complains the Council:
1. delayed in fixing a corroded handrail on steps leading to the promenade;
2. does not have an adequate ongoing inspection and maintenance system for its coastal metalwork in place;
3. gave inadequate responses to his requests for information and for guidance on reporting the problem;
4. failed to follow its complaint-handling process.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failure to properly inspect metal structures on the coast is compromising his and others’ safety. He wants the Council to:

• conduct a top-to-toe formal review of its preventative inspection and maintenance system for its coastal metalwork;
• train officers involved in maintenance and complaint-handling;
• stop issuing complaint reference numbers which are not then used;
• improve communications between officers and with the public;
• follow its own complaint-handling process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. It took the Council just under three weeks to replace the corroded metal handrail Mr X reported. About five days after Mr X’s first formal report of the problem, the Council covered the corroded areas with duct tape to prevent injuries to anyone using the rail. The Council might have repaired and replaced the handrail sooner. But Mr X was not injured or otherwise inconvenienced by its condition. There is not a significant injustice caused to Mr X by the time it took for the Council to repair and then replace the rail to warrant us investigating. I recognise Mr X is also concerned about the safety of others but we cannot consider an injustice to someone else, if there was one, to be an injustice to Mr X.
6. Given the condition the rail was in, Mr X considers the Council’s system for assessing and maintaining the metalwork on the seafront is inadequate and wants it to conduct a full formal review. The Council is satisfied officers inspect and maintain its metalwork appropriately using its current approach. Officers may decide to make changes in light of Mr X’s concerns, or after other reports it may receive. But in any event, the Council’s current system does not cause such a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation. I realise Mr X may be concerned, because of his opinion of the Council’s system, that it is not sufficient to protect his or others’ future safety. But he has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the Council having and implementing its current system. Mr X is also not caused sufficient injustice by speculative concerns he may have about what might happen as a result of the Council’s system, to him or anyone else, to warrant us investigating this part of the complaint.
7. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint-handling process and its communications with him. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling and correspondence matters in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint and those contacts. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• none of the issues raised relating to the handrail and the Council’s current maintenance scheme cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating;
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling and correspondence where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman