Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about works carried out by the Council at a local park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has blocked access to the river in a local park. He says the Council’s actions were carried out without public consultation and wants access to be reinstated.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said that the access point was blocked for ecological reasons as part of its duties under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, after consultation with the Environment Agency.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s suggestions for alternative solutions and explained why it did not agree that they were suitable. The Council did apologise to Mr X that it had not fully consulted with the public before carrying out work but said that a method of consultation was now in place for future projects at the park.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided to carry out the works. It considered its duties under relevant legislation and has fully explained and justified its reasoning. In the absence of fault we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
9. Whilst the Council acknowledged it should have done more to consult with the public; it has committed to doing so going forward. The Council has explained to Mr X why alternatives were not an option, so on balance it seems that even if the Council had consulted more with the public, the outcome would have been the same. For these reasons, investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the one carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman