Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions about the management of land it owns because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making and because we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to maintain proper access to a local area of coastland. He said the Council was in breach of its legal duties under the Equality Act 2020 and its failure means access is difficult for able-bodied people and impossible for those with disabilities. Mr X wants the Council to ensure that specific areas are cleared of vegetation to ensure public access.
2. Mr X also complained the Council’s stage 2 response was simply a repeat of the response at stage 1 of the complaints process and that the Council had not carried out an independent investigation at stage 2.

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 :

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made a decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to maintain proper access to a local area of coastland, which he said meant the Council was in breach of its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said:
• although it was responsible for the management of the foreshore, it could not act to remove vegetation in the area complained about without permission from Natural England;
• any duties under the Equality Act 2010 must be balanced against its duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
• it carried out frequent site checks and annual inspections to check whether it was necessary to warn the public of hidden dangers at the site but did not consider any such warnings were needed.
9. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:
• the land in question is part of the Council’s general property portfolio and the Council voluntarily gives permission for the public to access it;
• in January 2025 Natural England gave advice and limited permission to undertake vegetation management and the permitted works will be carried out between April and September 2025;
• it is continuing to work with Natural England and other relevant bodies with a view to an application for permission to carry out further works and is working to improve access arrangements through appropriate channels, including obtaining a marine licence.
10. We cannot decide if a Council has breached the Equality Act, or any other legislation, as this can only be done by the courts. Further, it is not our role to say whether a Council’s decision was correct, nor substitute our own view for that of the Council. Unless we find fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
11. In this case, the Council considered its legal duties under relevant legislation, including the Equality Act 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It acted, and continues to act, to obtain the permissions it considers it needs before carrying out the disputed works. In addition, it is carrying out regular site visits to consider whether any public warnings are needed about hidden dangers.
12. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify further investigation. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is to require the Council to carry out the action he seeks.
13. Due to limited resources, we do not investigate complaints handling where we have decided not to investigate the underlying complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman