Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council installing a fence and gate at the access to a beach and how it made that decision. This is because any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council installed a fence and locked gate at the top of some coastal cliffs, to prevent people from getting on or off the beach, without doing the proper risk assessments.
2. Mr X says the fence and gate have created a threat to life. He says walkers and hikers are trapped and stranded by incoming tides as they walk between beaches. Mr X says swimmers and surfers hang off the fence and railings, over the cliff, to get around the barrier. He considers the Council’s gate and fence will inevitably cause fatalities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. People may complain to us about injustice caused by:
• ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or
• the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).

4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law means we can choose only to investigate complaints where the person has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. There has been a landslip at the cliffs and the Council, which owns the steps to the beach below, installed the fence and gate to close off the access. We understand Mr X considers the barrier may cause more risk to people than if the steps to the beach were open and wants the Council to reassess its decision to install the fence and gate.
8. But Mr X lives many miles from the site. Even if he is a regular visitor or were a resident there, he is not caused a significant personal injustice by the presence of the fence and gate, nor by how the Council decided to install it. We recognise Mr X has concern for other people in making his complaint. But Mr X’s worry about what may happen to others because of the fence and gate is not a significant enough injustice to him to warrant us investigating. Any risks or harms which might happen to other people who choose to climb the barrier are not injustices to Mr X. Any risk run by the Council of being found not to have used appropriate assessments before installing the barrier is also not Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of is not sufficiently significant to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman