Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s installation of bollards in front of Mr X’s drive because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly installed bollards in front of his drive and was poor in its communications. He also complains it made false police reports and failed to provide a Disabled Facilities Grant (“DFG”).

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Where a person drives a car over a footway or verge to reach their home, the Council may decide to install a vehicle crossover or take action to prevent the crossing.
9. In this case the Council explained why it was not possible to install a crossover and it placed bollards to prevent the crossing. There is not enough evidence this decision was affected by fault or discrimination to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s contractors damaged his property is better dealt with through the Council’s insurers and then the courts. Only the courts can decide on liability for damage.
11. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to provide a DFG as I cannot see this has been through the Council’s complaints process. It is reasonable to give the Council the chance to investigate and reply.
12. The police are better placed to deal with Mr X’s concerns the Council has made false police reports.
13. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s communication or complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman