Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council installing a new hammer throwing cage in a park near to Mr X’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained the Council installed a new hammer throwing cage in a different location in the park close to his property.
2. He says that this was paid for from funds which were designated to parks and playgrounds and is unhappy the cage has been paid for using public funds.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has said the installation of the new hammer throwing cage is an eyesore. The new cage replaced a previous cage on the park but was moved to a different location.
9. Mr X’s property is far enough away from the park that any injustice Mr X might claim from its presence and location is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council was not under a statutory duty to consult before it decided to install the new cage 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 or feels funds should be spent elsewhere.
11. Mr X has also said the installation of the new cage diverted funds from parks and playgrounds. It is not for us to decide whether the Council should have purchased the cage and we cannot investigate whether it provided value for money for the taxpayer as this is an issue which affects all or most of the people in its area.
12. It is also unlikely that we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X as we would not be able to say that the Council should sell or remove the cage or reimburse taxpayers for the expenditure. It would not therefore be a good use of our resources to look at when and how the proposal for the new cage came to the Council’s attention.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman