Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to communicate with him about matters relating to his local park. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault or injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council will not respond to him about matters he raises in connection with his local park and the park user group. He says it has taken this stance based on a 2015 park user group meeting when he was expelled from the group and at which no Council official was present.

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:

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2015 Mr X’s behaviour led to his exclusion from a local park user group meeting and since this time his relationship with the group has been poor.
5. In 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X about his ongoing contact with it in relation to the park user group and reminded him that he had received previous warnings from the Council about his behaviour and contact in 2017. It told him it had now assessed matters under its Unreasonable Complainants Policy. It confirmed that it would not participate in his efforts to involve the Council in a dialogue about the group because it was happy with the decisions it was taking and because it did not wish to act as a conduit for his views about how the group was operating. It told Mr X that it viewed his contact with the Council as unreasonable and that it would not respond to any further contact he made about the group.
6. In early 2020 Mr X contacted the park user group raising a number of issues and asking to be put forward as a nominee to become Chair of the group. The acting Chair wrote to Mr X to explain the group’s position and, unhappy with the responses he received, Mr X contacted the Council and wrote to the Mayor.
7. The Council responded by sending Mr X its previous communication from 2019. It told him Council policy required its decision be reviewed every 6 months and that having done so its position remained unchanged and so it would not respond to his recent communication.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

9. Mr X and the park user group clearly have a poor relationship. However, the group is not part of the Council and it is not responsible for any decisions the group might make in connection with Mr X.
10. In terms of its own contact with Mr X, the Council assessed his conduct and decided it was unreasonable. It has recently reviewed its position and satisfied itself that its ongoing restriction should remain in place. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way it dealt with this matter.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says that separate to any issues to do with the park user group, the Council has not responded to queries he has made about matters such as the timescale for park signage replacement and bulb planting. However, in his complaint to the Mayor, Mr X asked the Council to look into the group as a matter of priority. Moreover, I do not consider a failure to respond on these issues, particularly given the history of Mr X’s contact with the Council, would cause injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault or injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman