Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his request relating to a secured access point. The Council’s actions has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s actions relating to, and responses it provided, when he asked it to investigate management and security of a locked access gate. Mr X said he was concerned about access for emergency services, and this was a potential safety issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X wrote to the Council concerned about how access for emergency services to an allotment site, because of a secured gate, which he said would inhibit access. He subsequently complained about this matter to the Council. Mr X was also unhappy because he said the Council’s complaint response was contradictory to the information he subsequently obtained.
5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X said he was concerned about the potential for access problems by the emergency services. However, an apprehension of a concern about something that has not directly affected Mr X is not a significant enough injustice that would warrant a full investigation by us.
7. Nor will we investigate how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It is not proportionate for us to investigate complaint handling, including the Council’s response, where we are not looking at how the Council dealt with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman