Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure that bollards in a car park were safe for pedestrians after he suffered personal injury when he fell over one. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for him to make a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance for any personal injury he suffered.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to consider the safety of pedestrians when it placed short wooden posts around a toilet area in a public car park. He fell over one of the posts when using the park and suffered minor injuries.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council after he fell over a short wooden post which is part of an area around public toilets and ticket machines in a public car park. He said that the bollards should be 1000mm high according to government highway guidance and these posts are only about 450mm. He says the posts are a hazard to people using the site.
6. The Council told Mr X that the bollards are not highway traffic bollards which are placed to protect pedestrians from traffic but are simply marker posts to delineate the area from others and prevent obstructive parking. There is no guidance for these types of markers.
7. The Council undertook a risk assessment of the posts but decided that there is no immediate need for further action at present.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Council does not consider that it has a highway duty to change the posts because they do not breach any existing guidance.
9. Anyone who suffers a personal injury from fixtures on council-owned land may submit a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance. It would be for the insurers or the courts to decide whether the Council was liable for the injury through negligence. These are legal matters and are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for him to make a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance for any personal injury he suffered.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman