Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not acknowledging their duties and responsibilities to manage and protect a local beach and its officers not answering his questions at a committee meeting. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near the coast and uses a local beach. He complains the Council:
1. has refused to acknowledge their duties and responsibilities to manage the beach’s inter-tidal zone under the lease they hold with the Crown Estates;
2. failed to answer his questions at an Environment Committee meeting.
2. Mr X says the Council not complying with the lease led to the beach suffering premature erosion so the beach is no longer a safe place for him to swim, which he has done two or three times a week over many years.

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:

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

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

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. Mr X says several years ago the sea breached the defences near where he used to swim. He considers that area is now unsafe for him to swim because the beach profile is steeper and there are many dangerous obstacles in the water. Mr X considers the Council has refused to and failed to comply with its duties and responsibilities under a lease it holds with the Crown Estates to maintain and protect the beach from this kind of erosion or other damage. The Council disputes Mr X’s position on its obligations. It says it is undertaking all duties that it is by law required to undertake. The Council says its lease does not require it to protect land or property from coastal erosion, and that the Environment Agency is the operating authority for the area regarding flood risk management.
6. It is unlikely we could resolve this dispute about the Council’s legal obligations regarding the beach’s protection and maintenance. But even if we did, and even if Mr X’s position is correct and there has been Council fault relating to the lease and its management of the beach, we will not investigate.
7. Mr X’s claimed injustice is that he considers the beach is no longer a safe place for him to swim. There are several other beaches in the immediate area where he could still swim. That he may need to go to a different nearby beach to swim is not a significant personal injustice. We understand Mr X also wants the Council to answer questions he has raised with them relating to this matter. We recognise he may be annoyed and frustrated he has not got responses he wanted from officers on the relevant committee. But that frustration and annoyance would not be a sufficiently significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman