Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a handrail on a beach which has disrupted the complainant’s view of the sea. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice, and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council installed a handrail on the beach which has disrupted her view of the sea. The view was important to her mental health and she has felt ill since the rail was built. Mrs X wants the Council to remove the rail or replace it with a rail which is fit for purpose.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any 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, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and before and after photographs of the beach. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council decided to improve disabled access on the beach. Following consultation with disability groups it installed a boardwalk and handrail. The handrail was specifically requested by representatives from disability groups.
5. Mrs X spends a lot of time on the beach and finds the environment and views vital for her health. She spends time in the area where the boardwalk has been placed and says the handrail disrupts her view of the sea. Mrs X says this disruption has significantly affected her mental wellbeing and has made her ill.
6. In response to her complaint the Council apologised for a lack of consultation with some beach users. It explained the handrail was a design feature requested by the disabled community and the Council had received positive feedback about the project which included that the rail makes people feel safe. The Council acknowledged people have different opinions about views but said the project had allowed people to enjoy the beach who could not previously do so. The Council noted Mrs X’s points about her health but said the rail would remain.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council accepts there was a lack of consultation with some beach users. However, even if there had been wider consultation, it is impossible to say the outcome would have been different. In addition, while I acknowledge Mrs X’s points about her health, the impact of a disrupted view from a rail, within the context of a whole beach with views, does not represent a level of injustice which requires an investigation.
8. We also could not achieve the outcome Mrs X would like. We cannot tell the Council to remove the rail, not least because people find it helpful, and we have no reason to ask the Council to change the rail. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X would like.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman