Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of play equipment at a local park. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or injustice to Mr X that warrants further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a member of a community support group (the Group) for a local park. He complained that the Council removed football goal posts from the park without consultation. He also complained about the Council’s decision not to install play equipment in the park after the Group had secured funding.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions meant that young people had lost access to football facilities, and it had deprived the local community of much needed resources.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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 considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council removed the football goals from the local park towards the beginning of 2021. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not consulted before removing.
8. In the Council’s complaint response, it said it had initially taken the goal posts down at the end of the season to prevent wear on the grass. It said it had decided not to reinstate the posts because adult football had declined, and the pitch was no-longer needed. It said the Council had sufficient capacity for junior football elsewhere.
9. During August, the Council consulted with the public about what facilities people would like to see in the park.
10. Around this time, Mr X made a further complaint to the Council about its decision not to install play equipment the Group had secured funding for. He said the Council had:
• Known about the Groups funding bid for 18 months and had delayed consulting with the public.
• Failed to respond to the Group when it had asked about would be suitable play equipment.
• Not involved the Group in the design of the consultation and not asked the public specifically about the play equipment the Group had proposed.
11. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It said that the COVID-19 pandemic had delayed the consultation process. It said it had prioritised work once the national lockdown ended. The Council said the play equipment needed to go into a designated play area, and that the current play area did not have space. It said it planned to install picnic tables which it had already identified as a priority. The Council suggested a meeting to discuss the results of the Council’s most recent consultation and the ongoing design of the park. Internal emails show that the provision of football posts and the play equipment proposed by the Group are part of those discussions.
12. The Council was not under a statutory duty to consult before it decided to remove the goal posts and it has provided reasons for its decision. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the goal posts further as there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.
13. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to install play equipment the Group has secured funding for. Although initially delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council has recently consulted with the public about the park and invited the Group to a meeting to discuss the results of that consultation and plans for the park moving forward. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation.
14. The Council has not yet made a decision about the installation of the play equipment. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman