Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about Council works on a park near the complainant’s home and the Council’s provision of information about the works. This is because there is no evidence of significant personal injustice to the complainant and it is unlikely we could add to a previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I refer to here as Mr X, lives near a park and complains that the Council’s clearance of vegetation in the park has damaged his enjoyment of it. He also complains that the council has provided misleading, inaccurate and inconsistent information.

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

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he is a frequent visitor to a Council-run park close to his home, which contains an area of woodland. Mr X feels that clearance of vegetation by Council contractors has affected the park’s wildlife and by extension, his enjoyment of it.
5. I will not investigate this part of the complaint as I do not consider this represents a significant personal injustice to Mr X.
6. Mr X first raised his concerns in March 2018 when the initial clearance was taking place and made a formal complaint in February 2019 after he realised the Council was planning further works.
7. Mr X complains that he has been provided with inconsistent and inaccurate information by the Council, including a misleading, back-dated survey. He wants compensation for stress and for his time spent dealing with the Council, which he estimates at 100 hours. He also wants the Ombudsman to require the Council to draw up a management plan for the park for community discussion, to obtain clarification from the Council about personnel involved in the park and to instruct the Council to investigate misinformation provided by its staff.
8. In its responses to Mr X’s complaints, the Council agreed that contradictory statements had been made and that clear, timely, consistent communication was needed in future. It also agreed that the survey was backdated and misleading and has referred this for further action. It recommended that a Friends Group be formed and resourced by the Council for the purpose of agreeing future management plans for the park.
9. It is unlikely that an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this for Mr X. I do not consider the injustice Mr X describes warrants a financial remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of significant personal injustice to Mr X and it is unlikely that an investigation would add anything to the Council’s previous investigation and outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman