Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Councils response to his concerns about footway repair works. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome and any injustice there may have been to Mr X is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council were at fault because he believed footway repair works that were being carried out on its behalf by a contractor, were not properly marked. Mr X said because of this the repair works were a hazard to people with disabilities, who then had to step onto a busy road to avoid them.
2. Mr X was also unhappy the Council did not act on his concerns when he raised them.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council about the repair works because he was concerned there was not enough consideration of safe access for people with disabilities, including those who are visually impaired and wheelchair users. In the Council’s responses, it said it had inspected the site at the start of the works and subsequently in response to Mr X’s concerns. It said it was satisfied with the arrangements the contractor had made.
7. Additionally, there was a dispute between Mr X’s account, including photographs he had taken, and the Council’s responses, relating to whether wheelchair ramps had been present at any time during the repair works.
8. We will not investigate this matter. This is because as a temporary structure, we could not say even on a balance of probabilities, what the site conditions were at any point, because structures such as ramps are moveable. Therefore, further investigation would likely not lead to a different outcome.
9. In any case, given the temporary nature of the repair works, which was several weeks in duration, and my consideration of the evidence I have seen, I am not satisfied any injustice there may have been to Mr X, is sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation.
10. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would likely not lead to a different outcome, and we are not satisfied any injustice to Mr X, is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman