Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s reports about the condition of a pathway and his subsequent complaint about this. This caused Mr X injustice as the condition of the pathway meant people were unable to access the tennis courts he ran a business from. In addition, he spent time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him for the distress caused, consider what went wrong in this case and investigate Mr X’s more recent concerns about the pathway.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly maintain a pathway he uses to work as a tennis coach. Mr X says this has meant some of his clients have been unable to access the tennis club.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr X. I discussed the complaint with Mr X over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. There has been extensive correspondence between Mr X, and the Council since November 2019. In this section of the statement, I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
7. Mr X works as a tennis coach. He provides coaching to students, some of whom have disabilities. To access the tennis club Mr X said he and his students have to use a pathway, which is in poor condition.
8. In November 2019 Mr X reported issues with the pathway via telephone. In December 2019 Mr X contacted the Council’s contractor who was responsible for the cleaning of the path. Mr X reported the pathway was poorly lit, had overgrowth which was obstructing the pathway. He also said the drains were full up with debris which was causing serious flooding on the pathway. Mr X explained both himself and his tennis students have to use the pathway to access the tennis club.
9. In January 2020 Mr X raised a complaint about the condition of the pathway with the Council’s contractors. The contractors passed Mr X’s complaint to the Council. Internal emails from the Council suggest Mr X should have received a formal response to this complaint, however it is not clear whether this was provided to Mr X.
10. The Council inspected the pathway in January 2020 and got its contractor to carry out works to the pathway. This included clearing the debris, litter and sweeping the path. The Council officer Mr X dealt with told him they had passed his concerns about the lighting and drainage of the pathway to the relevant teams.
11. Mr X continued to raise concerns about the condition of the pathway to the Council throughout 2020. In December 2020, Mr X raised a formal complaint as the pathway was still in a poor condition.
12. In January 2021, the Council officer Mr X sent his complaint to raised a job with the contractors to clear the gullies on the pathway. They also passed Mr X’s concerns to the highways team as there were concerns about drainage on the pathway.
13. On 29 January 2021 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. The Council said:
• Its engineers were investigating the flooding of the pathway.
• It has carried out a lighting survey and found 28 additional columns are needed along the pathway. The Council said it would prioritise these works when funding becomes available.
• It will carry out works to the overhanging and thorny vegetation over the winter.
• Its contractor apologised for any inconvenience caused by litter being swept to the side of the pathway. The manager responsible for the crew that service the pathway has spoken to the crew in relation to this matter. The Council said the contractor visits the pathway once a week to pick up litter and all litter should be bagged up and removed not swept to the side.
• It is carrying out targeted patrols to investigate any anti-social behaviour along the pathway.
14. Mr X spoke with the Council’s complaints team over the telephone in early February 2021 to discuss the stage one response. Mr X asked the Council why the issues with the pathway were not addressed when he first reported them in November 2019. He also said he sent the Council multiple email and photographic evidence of the pathway since 2019, and did not know why the Council had not asked him for additional evidence to substantiate his complaint.
15. On 8 February 2021, the Council contacted Mr X and apologised if he did not get a response when contacting staff directly about the pathway. It also said the Council would gather evidence about the pathway and visit the site as part of any investigation. Mr X sent the Council pictures of the pathway showing areas of large puddles.
16. In early March 2021, Mr X contacted the contractor responsible for the pathway and reported its condition. Mr X also sent the Council further photographic evidence of the condition of the pathway. He told the Council he did not believe the site was inspected weekly and flooding can last for weeks at a time. He also said he was unhappy the Council had not given him dates when works would take place to the pathway.
17. Internal emails from the Council show it intended to escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage two of its process, on the basis he was not happy with the condition of the path.
18. In March 2021, the contractor told Mr X it had started cleaning the pathway and the Council’s highways team were looking into the flooding on the pathway and grounds maintenance were looking into cutting back the vegetation. By the end of March 2021, the Council received confirmation from its contractors it had cleaned the pathway. In addition, the engineers looking at the flooding confirmed to the Council the pathway was cleared of mud, silt and the gullies were flowing as they should.
19. In April 2021, Mr X contacted the Council and asked why his reports about the pathway from 2019 onwards were not actioned. Mr X asked the Council to investigate who was responsible for this. The Council responded to Mr X on 22 April 2021 and told him it accepted fault on a customer service level but it would not be a good use of public funds to perform an in-depth investigation of past events which cannot be changed. The Council listed this response to Mr X on its system as a stage two complaint response, however the response did not tell Mr X how he could progress the matter further or make it clear it was a stage two response.
20. In June 2021, the Council received confirmation the pathway was being patrolled regularly in relation to anti-social behaviour issues. The Council also received confirmation from its engineer that they visited the pathway to find a gully partially blocked and this had now been cleared.
21. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in June 2021 and said there were still problems with the condition of the pathway and the Council was not responding to his concerns about this. After contacting the Council, it agreed to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage three of its complaints process.
22. On 30 July 2021, the Council provided Mr X with its final response. The Council said:
• It had cleared the pathway of fly tipping, overgrown vegetation and flooding.
• The site is inspected through routine checks to ensure suitable conditions are maintained.
• The pathway is due to get additional lighting and has been added to a list of works in the borough. The additional lighting works to the pathway are not considered essential and not included in the programme for this year. The Council said it cannot say when the lighting will be installed due to finances and other works being higher priority.
• Covid 19 impacted the Council carrying out inspections at the pathway. In addition, correspondence and notes from telephone calls were not always recorded.
• The Council officer Mr X was communicating with since 2019 said he sent in over 185 items of correspondence and 50 of these were received in a short space of time.
• It partially upholds his complaint about the condition of the path but does not uphold the complaint about a staff member and says it will not investigate them.
23. The Council told Mr X its contractor who is in charge of waste and street cleaning carry out weekly litter picking at the site. It also empties the gullies on the pathway twice per year and carries out manual sweeping.
24. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X said there are still problems with the condition of the pathway and flooding. In addition, Mr X said the pathway is poorly lit. The Council has also received a further report about the condition of the pathway, since concluding its complaints process, from another tennis club along the pathway.

Back to top

Analysis

Mr X’s reports about the condition of the pathway

25. The Council was at fault for how it handled Mr X’s reports about the condition of the pathway and the length of time it took to address his concerns. Mr X initially raised concerns in November 2019. While it appeared the Council took some action in January 2020 to clear the pathway, this did not resolve the issue and Mr X continued to report the condition of the pathway to the Council. The Council also passed on Mr X’s concerns about lighting and flooding to the relevant teams but it is not clear whether any action was taken following this.
26. Mr X eventually made a formal complaint in January 2021 as he believed the Council had not addressed the problems with the condition of the pathway. It was only after this the Council set out what it was going to do to look into the matter when it provided Mr X with a stage one response. However, it took until June 2021 for the Council to clear the pathway, look into drainage issues, put in place patrols for anti-social behaviour and carryout a lighting survey. The Council has also agreed with its contractor for weekly litter picking and cleaning of the gullies twice yearly.
27. Given Mr X had been reporting issues with the pathway since the end of 2019, the Council should have attempted to address Mr X’s reports sooner. As a result, Mr X and his tennis students have experienced problems accessing the tennis club due to the condition of the pathway.
28. The Council acknowledged there was poor record keeping and Mr X did not receive a joined up service from the relevant departments. The Council also recognised the lighting on the pathway was inadequate. It has explained it cannot improve the lighting at present as it has to manage its budget to improve other sites which are in more urgent need. I recognise Mr X disagrees with this and believes the Council should improve the lighting, however it is up to the Council to decide how it manages its budget. The Council has provided evidence to show there are more urgent sites in need, therefore I cannot say the Council is at fault here.
29. Since the conclusion of the complaints procedure, Mr X has said there are still problems with the condition of the pathway, namely flooding, litter and overgrown trees. In addition, the Council has also received a report from another person about the condition of the pathway mentioning the same issues. It is not clear what action the Council has taken since receiving these reports, however it would be appropriate for the Council to review the condition of the pathway and the measures it has put in place to see if it can address Mr X’s concerns.

Complaint handling

30. The Council operates a three stage complaints procedure. After stage one the Council discussed the complaint with Mr X who remained dissatisfied with the condition of the pathway. The Council agreed internally it would escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage two regarding the condition of the pathway, however it did not provide him with a response at stage two, to this issue. This is fault.
31. The Council did tell Mr X it would not investigate concerns he raised about the lack of action from a staff member who he was reporting the condition of the pathway to from 2019. The Council said this was in fact a stage two response, however it did not make clear it was a stage two response or tell Mr X how he could progress matters if he was still dissatisfied. This is also fault.
32. As a result, Mr X contacted the Ombudsman before he had concluded the Council’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman had to ask the Council to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage three. Had the Council handled Mr X’s complaint without fault he would have likely concluded the complaints procedure quicker and would not have spent unnecessary time and trouble pursuing this.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the distress, time and trouble he spent in pursuing this matter.
• Look at what went wrong in this case when handling Mr X’s reports about the condition of the pathway and consider how the Council can put in place a joined up approach when dealing with concerns involving different teams.
• Look into Mr X’s most recent concerns about the pathway to see what/if any works need completing. Inform Mr X what/if anything the Council intends to do with a timescale.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s reports about the condition of a pathway. This caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman