Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not have due regard for the Public Sector Equality Duty when it designed a replacement bridge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to have due regard for its Public Sector Equality Duty in the design of a replacement bridge. He said the bridge design failed to properly consider the needs of Disabled people and the Equality Impact Assessment completed by the Council on the design was poor. He also complained about the Council’s communication with him.
2. Mr X wants the Council to revisit its design decision and apologise for its complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council after it approved planning permission for the replacement bridge. He expressed concern with the Council’s decision to replace a proposed ramp with steps. He said that severely limited access for those with mobility issues. He said the design was a potential breach of the Equality Act 2010.
7. In response to Mr X, the Council said there were initially two designs for the bridge. It said one design was discounted because it would most likely discourage users and was considered unsuitable and unsafe.
8. Mr X continued to challenge the design. He referred to the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment, which did not identify any positive benefits in the scheme for Disabled people.
9. In its final complaint response, the Council accepted the Equality Impact Assessment could have included more comments about the positive and negative impacts of the bridge improvements for those with a protected characteristic. However, it confirmed that would not have impacted on the overall design of the replacement bridge. It said it was not possible to provide ramped access to the towpath given land constraints. It apologised for the tone of previous communication between Mr X and the Council, which it acknowledged was aggressive and unnecessary.
10. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate his complaint for the following reasons.
• The report prepared for the Planning Committee, demonstrates the Council did explore ramped access to the towpath from the bridge, but that was not possible because of the location of the site. It set out the reasons for this. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it considered its Public Sector Equality Duty to justify our involvement.
• Mr X wants the Council to change the design of the replacement bridge. This is not an outcome the Ombudsman could achieve. The design has been approved at Planning Committee. We have no authority to override that decision.
• If Mr X believes the Council has breached the Equality Act, that would be a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman. We cannot say the Council has breached the Equality Act.
• The Council has apologised for its tone in its communication with him. That remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman