Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of reports of an obstruction on a pavement outside a premises. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X has mobility issues and uses a walking stick. On two occasions, he caught his stick on chairs placed outside a premises while walking past, causing him to fall. He is extremely upset and remains concerned about the ongoing risk of further falls.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. On the first occasion that Mr X fell, he complained to the Council. The Council investigated and found the tables and chairs were on private land. Officers spoke to the business owner and asked them to install barriers to prevent the chairs from encroaching onto the public highway and obstructing the two-metre pedestrian route.
8. Despite these measures, Mr X fell again a few months later and he made a further complaint to the Council. The Council explained it had a voluntary agreement with the owner to use barriers. However, its powers were limited because the tables and chairs were on private land, over which it had no enforcement powers.
9. The Council partly upheld Mr X's complaint. Accepting when he contacted the Council, he was passed between departments while already distressed. They accepted this was upsetting apologised and said an officer did call him back later the same day.
10. Our role is to investigate the administrative actions of the Council and based upon the evidence I have seen, the Council investigated Mr X's concerns, engaged with the business owner to reduce the risk of further incidents, and identified service improvements, including clearer communication and better support for vulnerable residents. The Council also committed to checking the premises during routine patrols and continuing to engage with the business to keep the pedestrian route clear. We consider this a reasonable response to Mr X's complaint.
11. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint. While I appreciate the distress this situation has caused him, the Council has taken reasonable steps within the limits of its powers. Further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
12. In addition, if Mr X suffered injury as a result of either fall, it would be reasonable for him to seek independent legal advice or pursue a claim through the business's insurer. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for personal injury or decide whether a third party is legally responsible for an accident. Those matters are more suitably considered by the courts or insurers.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint; this is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman