Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s purchase of Christmas trees and its refusal to ban dogs from public green spaces. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council should not spend public money on Christmas trees, which he considers wasteful and divisive. He also complains the Council has refused to ban dogs from public green spaces. He says the purchase and display of Christmas trees sends the wrong messages to residents and may lead to violence and acts of terrorism, and its refusal to ban dogs means he cannot use local parks.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

Christmas trees

5. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in November 2020 as he was concerned about the Council’s plan to buy and display Christmas trees in the area. Mr X believes this is a waste of public money and should not be allowed as the trees are a religious symbol which may divide residents and lead to violence and acts of terrorism.
6. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to purchase and display Christmas trees as it is a decision it is entitled to make. While Mr X does not agree with it this itself is not evidence of fault. It also does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice and does not therefore warrant the cost of further investigation.
7. The Council is entitled to decide how to use public funds and we cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that Christmas trees are a waste of money. This is because the issue is one of expenditure which affects ‘all or most’ of the people in its area.

Dogs

8. Mr X is unhappy the Council allows residents to walk dogs in public green spaces and believes they should be confined to private areas such as dog parks and private grounds. He says that as a result he cannot use local parks and is essentially house-bound.
9. But there is no requirement for the Council to prohibit dogs from public green spaces and its refusal to do so is not fault. It is for the Council to decide whether to introduce such restrictions and its refusal to do so does not prevent Mr X from going outside. He may choose not to go to local parks but this is his choice and is not the direct and unavoidable result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman