Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's consideration of the risks posed by Wall Barley in a local park. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council's response to her concerns regarding the presence of Wall Barley in her local park. She says it became significantly more widespread during summer 2025, creating a risk to dogs and limiting the safe use of parts of the park by dog walkers. Ms X says the Council did not properly consider the evidence she provided or explain how it assessed the risks posed. She is also concerned the issue may recur. Ms X would like us to investigate how the Council considered and responded to her concerns. She would also like the Council to carry out a risk assessment, review its mowing arrangements, and provide clearer information about how it manages the park for both wildlife and park users.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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. The Council investigated Ms X's concerns and explained that, while Wall Barley awns can pose a risk to dogs, most of the park is regularly cut and remains available for safe use by dog walkers. It said its approach achieves an appropriate balance between supporting wildlife and public use of the park.
6. Based upon the evidence I have seen the Council considered Ms X's concerns, investigated the issues she raised, and explained its position, and whilst I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council's view, disagreement alone is not evidence of fault. In addition, Ms X says the Wall Barley has since been removed, so there is no ongoing issue.
7. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint because I do not consider she has suffered a significant personal injustice. I understand Ms X is concerned that Wall Barley may return in future. However, that concern is speculative. A possible future problem does not, by itself, amount to a significant personal injustice. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully and normally only investigate the most serious complaints where someone has suffered a significant personal injustice.
8. Ms X also raises concerns about the Council's complaint handling. However, we do not normally investigate complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman