Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council used a skatepark anti-loitering device outside of agreed hours. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has used a skatepark anti-loitering device, outside of agreed hours. He said that caused him to feel unwell when using the park. He wants the Council to review his complaint and consider the evidence he has provided.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council confirmed it had inspected the device and that it was correctly programmed in terms of operational hours. The Council has reviewed the video evidence he has provided. It said the video does not show the date or time, nor could it hear the device working on the video. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, there is no evidence of fault in how it considered his concerns; further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman