Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council installing a fence in a local park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council installed fencing around a flower bed in a local park which has restricted her from accessing the upper area of the park as a person with a disability. The matter caused Miss X frustration. She wants the Council to provide a route which she can use to access the upper area of the park.

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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X used a specific area of the park to access the upper area of the park. Miss X said the Council decided to fence the area that she used as an access point. She said since then, she has not been able to access the upper area. Miss X said there are no other access points which are safe to use. She said the Council did not consider how installing the fencing would affect people who have disabilities and require mobility aids.
7. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint. In its response, the Council:
• explained to Miss X it had received several reports of the area which is a flower bed, being damaged by dogs and people walking and cycling through it. It decided to install a low fence around the flower bed to protect it;
• said its decision to install the fence was solely to protect the flower bed and not to restrict any access to other parts of the park. It therefore did not consider it was a requirement to identify whether it would affect accessibility to other parts of the park; and
• informed Miss X the upper part of the park remained accessible. It had not altered any access points.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to install the fence. The Council received reports the flower bed was being damaged by dogs and by people walking and cycling through it. It was therefore reasonable for the Council to take steps to protect the flower bed.
9. In relation to Miss X’s concern that the Council failed to consider the impact of the fencing on people with disabilities who use mobility aids, the Council explained existing access points remained available and the upper part of the park could still be accessed. In these circumstances, we have not seen evidence that the Council’s decision to protect the flower bed resulted in a loss of access to the upper part of the park.
10. Furthermore, we usually investigate complaints where the complainant has experienced serious harm or distress as a direct result of the Council’s actions. We recognise Miss X may be frustrated however, we do not consider it to be significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final Decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman