Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about first aid arrangements at a lido and public park. Only the courts can decide if the Council contributed to the seriousness of the injury she suffered. And the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants of the Council reviewing its procedures to deal with serious accidents on its premises.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, suffered serious injuries to her leg when two large dogs ran in to her at a public park. Ms B complains there was inadequate first aid provision at the park and it took the ambulance 20-30 minutes longer than necessary to reach her because the gates were locked. Ms B says if she had been provided with an ice pack more quickly, this could have reduced swelling and further complications from the injury. Ms B has explained the injury is life changing and she has had extensive surgery. She is unable to bear weight on her leg, cannot drive, walk or work and potentially faces more surgery and years of further recovery.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Ms B provided when she made her complaint. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and considered the comments she made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms B has explained she wants the Council to review its health and safety procedures to improve its handling of accidents on its premises that are open to the public. Ms B also wants the Council to train staff, to provide first aid in its public spaces and to provide her with an apology and compensation towards her losses, her pain and suffering.
7. While Ms B considers the Council’s responses at the time of the accident and after she raised her complaint are inadequate, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.
8. If Ms B believes the Council contributed to the seriousness of her injury through failures or neglect (such as a delay in unlocking the gates to allow emergency medical assistance), this is a matter she would need to pursue through legal action. Only the courts can decide if the Council has any liability to Ms B for her injury and whether it should pay damages for her losses, pain and suffering.
9. Ms B complains about the adequacy of the Council’s health and safety procedures, but health and safety legislation relates to the regulation of health, safety and welfare for those at work and for those affected by work activity.
10. The Ombudsman has no grounds to recommend the Council manages its park differently or implements the changes to first aid provision Ms B wants to see. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because only the courts can decide if the Council contributed to the seriousness of the injury Ms B suffered. And the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants of the Council reviewing its procedures to deal with serious accidents on its premises.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman