Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where the Council positioned a bollard. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s placement of a bollard following a report of a vehicle driving on the pavement. He said it causes the public to use his side of the property and has caused damage. He wants the Council to move the bollard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported an incident of a car driving on the pavement to the Council in February 2025.
6. The Council advised Mr X to inform the police and attended the site to make an assessment. The Council decided to place a bollard on the pavement to prevent an incident reoccurring.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about where the Council placed the bollard. In its complaint response the Council said it positioned it to allow wheelchairs and buggies to pass. It said the position does not hinder pedestrian movement and provides restrictions to illegal vehicle movement. It concluded there were not significant grounds to warrant it moving the bollard and suggested Mr X could put up a fence.
8. Mr X provided the Council video footage of a groundsman cutting across his property. The Council said it identified the Officer and had addressed the issue.
9. 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, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. We will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
• The Council responded to Mr X report and an Officer reviewed the area. It explained to Mr X why it decided the placement of the bollard. It considered his views and set out its reasons for deciding not to move the bollard. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to warrant our involvement.
• The Council apologised for the groundsman cutting across his property. It said it identified the member of staff and addressed the issue. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman