Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in managing a dangerous structure. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council erected scaffolding across the access to his building due to concerns about a dangerous structure. He says the scaffolding has prevented vehicle access for several months, trapped another resident's vehicle in the car park, and prevented residents and businesses from using private parking spaces. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to several complaints or address residents' concerns about access and parking, causing a significant inconvenience. Mr X wants the Council to consider alternative measures to restore vehicle access and provide free parking permits for Council car parks.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 responded to Mr X's complaint and explained the scaffolding needed to remain in place to protect the public from the risk of falling debris and structural failure. It said it had considered alternative ways of keeping the entrance open, but none provided an adequate level of safety. The Council also said it had been advised altering the scaffolding could compromise its safety function, although it had requested a report from the scaffolding company on possible modifications.
6. The Council also explained the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the building lies with the property owner. It said it was working with the owner and their structural engineers to develop and put in place a suitable repair solution and was taking steps to resolve the matter.
7. Mr X also asked the Council to provide free parking permits to affected residents. The Council considered this request and said it would allow affected vehicles to use long-stay car parks without the usual time restrictions while the works remained in place.
8. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because, based on the evidence I have seen, further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council. I appreciate Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council's response. However, the Council has a statutory responsibility to take action where it considers a structure to be dangerous and to protect public safety. I also consider the Council took reasonable steps to address the parking issues.
9. Regarding Mr X's complaint, the scaffolding has trapped a resident's vehicle in the car park, any resulting injustice affects that resident rather than Mr X, so I do not consider this causes Mr X a significant personal injustice that warrants investigation.
10. In addition, Mr X also complains about the Council's complaint handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman