Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s concerns about the condition of land near his home. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about the condition of an area of land next to a park near his home. He says it is no longer safe for him to walk across the land.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint., The Council provided background information including its response to Mr B’s concerns.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B complained to the Council about the condition of a piece of land near his home. He said a path across the land was overgrown and unsafe. He also raised concerns about the condition of a pond and the lack of benches.
7. In response, the Council inspected the area, cleared it of litter and cut back vegetation. The Council also inspected the pond and decided it was in a healthy condition.
8. Although the Council failed at first to let Mr B know what it had done, it later apologised for this.
9. The Council considers the path is safe and does not require any repair work. It says it may carry out general improvements to the area, including the provision of benches, if funding allows in the future. It does not have the resources to carry out this work at present.

Analysis

10. The Council has not ignored Mr B’s concerns and has taken the action it considers necessary. While I understand Mr B would like the Council to do more, I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how it decided what action to take. In the absence of fault, we cannot substitute our judgement for that of the Council.
11. I do not consider the initial delay by the Council in replying to Mr B caused him injustice that warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault causing Mr B significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman