Leicester City Council (26 004 977)

Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 13 Jul 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install bollards near his home or his concerns that the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council failed to:
      1. consider his request to tarmac an area outside his home which he says poses a risk to his children who have disabilities; and
      2. consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
  2. Mr X said the matter caused him distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered Mr X’s request. It considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when making its decision. The Council explained the grass verge Mr X complained about was being damaged by vehicles, causing soil to be exposed and detritus to be apparent. To prevent damage, it explained it would install bollards. This would enable the grass to regrow. It said it would not tarmac the area and explained its reasons.
  2. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
  3. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings