Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor performance on accessibility issues in the Council’s area. Nor in the way the Council considered the complaint. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Also we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the complaints procedure alone to justify an investigation into this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to accept its performance on accessibility in its area is poor. In particular, he says the Council removed an access bridge in the town centre before installing a replacement toucan crossing.
2. He also complains an officer investigated a complaint which concerns his own actions and refused to make reasonable adjustments.
3. Mr X wants:
• The Council to acknowledge it acted improperly when it removed the old bridge before installing the replacement toucan crossing.
• The Council to make arrangements to address all accessibility and rights of way issues in the town.
• The Ombudsman to decide when the Officer can investigate a complaint about themselves.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman is not a regulatory body and it is not for us to ensure accessibility compliance throughout the town.
8. A replacement crossing is now in place. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge it should have been in place before the old crossing was removed. However, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. We consider it is not a good use of our resources just to obtain an apology.
9. I understand Mr X wants the Council to address all accessibility and rights of way issues in the town. The Council advised Mr X that the Equality Act 2010 and national guidance imposes a duty on the Council to consider requests for accessibility improvements together with factors such as:
• The historical character of existing structures and the landscape.
• The needs of other users.
• The accessibility of the whole route.
• The needs of the landowner.

It confirms it will always consider the least restrictive option for access.

10. The Council also advised Mr X where “suggested improvements can be made as a reasonable adjustment, subject to the appropriate funding being available, these requests would be considered and potentially implemented.”
11. Given the above I consider that further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Finally, Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his complaint. The published complaint procedure states:
• Stage one complaints will normally be considered by the Service Delivery Manager or Team Leader of the service complained about.
• Stage two complaints are considered by the Senior Formal Complaints Investigator who is a member of the Customer Relationship Team.
13. Mr X says the person who responded to his stage two complaint was the subject of the complaint who refused to make reasonable adjustments for him.
14. The Council’s response to his complaint confirms Mr X asked for a telephone call to discuss the complaint. However the Officer asked Mr X to put his concerns in writing because he had previously had lengthy telephone conversations with various staff members and raised concerns about accuracy. Mr X regularly corresponds with the Council by email and on social media and had not previously requested any reasonable adjustments to the way he communicates with the Council. The Officer therefore considered a written record of his concerns to be most appropriate.
15. I understand Mr X does not agree with the Council’s actions and wanted to discuss his complaint on the telephone. However, from the information I have seen the Council considered his request and has explained why it asked for information in writing. I do not consider Mr X was at a disadvantage as he was able to access the Council’s complaints process. However, from the information I have seen the Council has followed its complaints procedure. Also, we do not consider that injustice arising solely from the complaints procedure is significant enough to justify an investigation on this point alone.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We consider an investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and
• We do not consider Mr X suffered sufficient injustice because of the way the Council conducted the complaint process to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman