Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an alleged assault on the complainant and his right of way being obstructed. He is unlikely to find fault by the Council that is within his jurisdiction has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained he was assaulted while trying to cycle across a park. He says the Council had not properly suspended a right of way across the park. Mr B says the police will not investigate the assault because the Council wrongly said the right of way was legally suspended.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint about action taken by or on behalf of any policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 2, as amended)
4. 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’.
5. 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;
• any fault has not caused the complainant injustice that would justify our involvement;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information including its response to Mr B’s concerns. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. As I understand it, the Council temporarily closed access to a park it manages to allow a film production company to shoot a scene. Security staff working for the company prevented Mr B from entering the park and he says he was assaulted.
8. Mr B says he reported the assault to the police but they will not investigate because the Council wrongly said he had no right to enter the park.
9. In his complaint to us, Mr B listed the outcomes he sought. He said the Council should:
• apologise to him and admit he had every right to be in the park;
• formally reprimand its staff who lied about the situation;
• tell the police he had a right to be in the park and ask them to investigate the assault; and
• ask the police and Security Industry Authority (SIA) to investigate the unlawful use of force against him and the use of unlicensed security guards (or licensed security guards not displaying their licences).

Analysis

10. The main issue in Mr B’s complaint is the assault he says he suffered. This is a complaint about a crime and is not something we can investigate.
11. I see no reason Mr B cannot make known his concerns to the police or SIA. This is not the Council’s responsibility. It will be for those bodies to decide what, if any, action to take in response; we have no jurisdiction over them.
12. The Council considers it was entitled to restrict access to the park. Even if this was not the case, the main injustice Mr B claims to have suffered relates to matters outside our jurisdiction and for which we cannot provide any worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons set out in paragraphs 10 to 12.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman