Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide accessibility for disabled people within its footway network. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council considered the accessibility of its footway network.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide accessibility for disabled people within its footway network. Mr X complains there is a lack of dropped kerbs and footpaths are poorly surfaced and in a state of disrepair.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Equality Act 2010

8. Section 149 of the of the Act sets out the public sector equality duty. This duty has three aims, it requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act;
• advance equality of opportunity between people with a protected characteristic and people without;
• foster good relations between people with a protected characteristic and people without.

9. Having due regard means consciously thinking about the three aims of the Equality Duty as part of the process of decision making. This means considerations of equality issues must influence the decisions reached by public bodies.

What happened

10. In May 2019, Mr X made a complaint to the Council about accessibility for disabled people within its footpath network. Mr X highlighted there was a lack of dropped kerbs in the footpath network, a lack of accessible bus stops, and that some footpaths were poorly surfaced and in a state of disrepair.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in June 2019. The Council noted it was in discussion with its contractor about the application of the Equality Act 2010. The Council also explained it could not address all accessibility issues and that it would base any improvements on a needs analysis.
12. The Council explained its contractor completed surveys of roads and footways to ensure they meet the standards set out within the contract. The Council said each district had to achieve the same average score. The Council explained not all roads and footways would be of the same standard because of the requirement to achieve an average.
13. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided a project initiation document (PID) which set out its aims and outcomes for its ‘Equality Act 2010’ project. The document recognises the Council’s duties to provide reasonable adjustments. It highlights two types of adjustments.
14. Type one adjustments (considered reasonable adjustments):

• Uncontrolled drop-kerbs/crossings;
• KASSEL (a particular type of kerb) kerbs at bus stops;
• Disabled parking bays (required to provide access to key public facilities);and
• Limited lengths of pedestrian handrails (individual length of handrails not exceeding 5m)

15. Type two adjustments (not considered reasonable adjustments):

• Disabled parking bays (private requests)
• Controlled crossings, Pelican crossings
• Pedestrian handrails exceeding individual lengths of 5m (or less where no works are planned)
• New footways
• Uncontrolled drop-kerb/crossings (where no works are planned)
• KASSEL kerbs at bus stops (Where no works are planned)

16. The document noted the Council’s contractors would compile a list of potential locations where assets can be completed in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. In simple terms, the contractors will identify potential locations where it can complete works to improve accessibility. The contractors will compile these lists every year, with the aim for works to be completed by 2025.
17. The Council confirmed it does intend to improve the accessibility of its footway network by following the steps outlined in the PID.

Analysis

18. Under the public sector equality duty, the Council must have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between people with a protected characteristic and people without.
19. The Council has explained it intends to improve the accessibility of its footway network through its ‘Equality Act 2010’ project. The aim of this project is to identify locations where the Council can improve accessibility. The Council’s method to achieving this is set out within the PID.
20. Therefore, there is evidence the Council has had due regard to its public sector equality duties. This is because the Council has consciously thought about the accessibility of its network and it has taken steps to identify areas for improvement to increase accessibility.
21. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how the Council considered the issue of accessibility and how it considered its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. It is not our role to decide whether the Council’s actions and decisions breaches the Equality Act 2010. This is something only a Court can determine. Further, the Ombudsman cannot decide the Council has not done enough, or that it should do more, to meet its duties under the Act.
22. In this case, the Council has demonstrated it has properly considered the matter of accessibility and shown it has had due regard to its duties under the public sector equality duty. Therefore, I cannot find fault with its actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I find no fault with the way the Council considered the accessibility of its footway network. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman