Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to properly investigate why a contractor carried out works to a community park. This is because any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant a further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate why a contractor carried out works to a community park. She said the matter caused her distress as damage was caused to the park during the works. As part of an outcome, Mrs X wants the Council to be transparent about why works were carried out, provide her with a timescale of when it will repair the damage and take enforcement action against the contractor if the repairs have not been done.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X along with others in the community maintain a Council owned park.
6. In late 2025, Mrs X found workmen were carrying out work in the park and an adjacent area. She said she was not aware of any planned works and that the workmen had caused damage to the park. Mrs X said the Council initially informed her the reason for the work was due to a burst water pipe however, Mrs X said the workmen told her whilst they were carrying out planned landscape works in the park, they had accidently damaged the water pipe.
7. Mrs X was unhappy as she and others had put a lot of work into the park and it had now been damaged. She said the damage had not been repaired. Mrs X said the contractor should have sought permission from the Council before carrying out any works.
8. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint. In its response to Mrs X, the Council:
• explained a water pipe had burst within the area. The contractors could only access the pipe via the park;
• informed Mrs X as the works were deemed as an emergency, no planning permission was required to carry them out;
• said the contractors had taken reasonable steps to minimise damage to the park however, it recognised the damage would have upset Mrs X. The Council added the workmen should have repaired the damage once works were completed. It apologised to Mrs X this had not happened; and
• it would ensure any remedial work would be carried out.
9. Whilst we recognise Mrs X is unhappy with the Council's investigation and the damage to the community park caused her distress, we do not consider the injustice caused to her personally is significant enough to warrant a further investigation. The main impact complained about is damage to a community park rather than significant personal loss or harm to Mrs X. We will therefore not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant a further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman