Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her concerns in relation to its park. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s response in relation to her report about its park’s disrepair and opened gates. The matter caused Miss X frustration. She wants the Council to acknowledge it acted with fault.

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.

(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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X regularly visits the Council’s park.
6. Miss X said during a visit, she found some of the park boundaries in disrepair and some gates facing a road which were usually closed were open. She said she reported the concerns to the wardens of the park.
7. Miss X said a few days later, she was in the park with her dog. She was attempting to repair some of the damage and her dog escaped the park and went into the adjacent road. Miss X said a car almost hit her dog.
8. Following this, Miss X complained to the Council. She wanted the Council to implement measures to prevent access to the adjacent road.
9. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council:
• advised Miss X that all repair and access enquiries should be reported to the wardens of the park. It said the wardens had not received Miss X’s initial report;
• had locked all gates facing the adjacent road and carried out repairs to the park boundaries; and
• advised Miss X not to carry out any repairs herself and to keep her dog safe.
10. In her complaint to us, Miss X said the Council had accused her of lying about making an initial report to the wardens.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. Once it was aware of Miss X’s concerns, it took appropriate action by carrying out repairs to the park and locking the gates.
12. The Council also advised Miss X not to carry out repairs herself and to keep her dog safe. This was appropriate and in the best interest of Miss X’s safety as well as her dog’s.
13. Furthermore, the Council’s response did not accuse Miss X of lying about making an initial report to the wardens. It said the wardens had not received a report. In any case, any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman