Summary: Ms X says a council officer made a dishonest submission to the Ombudsman when responding to a previous complaint she made to the Ombudsman and the Council failed to carry out a review of parking arrangements at a football club before the start of the 2021 football season. This complaint was closed because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Ms X. Ms X says a council officer made a dishonest submission to the Ombudsman when the Council responded to the investigator’s draft decision statement in the course of a previous complaint she made to this service. Ms X also says the Council failed to carry out a review of parking arrangements at a football club before the start of the 2021 football season.
2. Ms X says the council officer’s submission indicated that she and other supporters were not affected by the removal of blue badge parking whereas they were affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 details of Ms X’s present complaint; details of her previous complaint to the Ombudsman; and correspondence from Ms X to the Ombudsman. I sent a draft decision statement to Ms X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of Ms X’s previous complaint

6. Ms X complained that the Council:
• allowed a football club to construct a building unsuitable for disabled people, contrary to its duty under the Equalities Act 2010; and
• changed the parking arrangements at a sports club so that disabled people must now park on gravel, which is unsuitable for wheelchairs. She says the new parking is also near the new stand which has no facilities for disabled people, meaning she has to walk or use a wheelchair to find a suitable toilet.
7. In 2013, the club applied to the Council for permission to build a new stand at its ground. The Council approved the application. The new stand had no disabled toilet facilities, but the Council considered that it was acceptable because it was part of a structure – the stadium - which did have such facilities.
8. Prior to 2019, this was not a problem for Ms X as she and her husband would park on the other side of the ground along the road leading to the stadium using their blue badge pass. They would then walk the manageable distance to their seats in that stand in which there was disabled toilet provision for women.
9. In 2019, the Council prevented blue badge holders from parking on the road leading to the stadium. It says it did so on the advice of the police who said that allowing parking in that place was a health and safety hazard.
10. On the complaint that the Council allowed the football club to construct a building that was unsuitable for disabled people contrary to a duty under the Equalities Act 2010, the Ombudsman found the Council had not commissioned an equality impact assessment when it considered the planning application for the stand. However, the Ombudsman did not find fault by the Council because there was no legal requirement that it should commission an equality impact assessment. The Council said it had conducted various investigations into the operation of the stand and had found no fault with the stand. It said it would continue to assess the operation of the stand.
11. On the complaint that the Council changed the parking arrangements at the football club so that disabled people must now park on gravel, the Ombudsman did not find fault by the Council as it restricted blue badge holders such as Ms X from parking on an access road on the recommendation of the Police. The Ombudsman accepted the football club had put in place sufficient alternative parking arrangements for displaced blue badge holders. Ms X disagrees and says there are no other spaces available for her to use.

New complaint

12. Ms X now says the Ombudsman’s decision was affected by a dishonest submission made by a council officer. The dishonest submission involves the following:
• The officer said the football club worked closely with Ms X and met with her on multiple occasions along with councillors and council officers. Ms X says she met with them once and not on multiple occasions.
• The officer said the football club operates a points system to prioritise disabled provision whereas Ms X says the number of points is irrelevant.
• The officer’s submission contained confidential information about her which had been obtained from the football club in breach of data protection laws.
• The officer said another officer who dealt with the temporary traffic regulation order which restricted parking on the access road undertook an equality impact assessment and placed it on the file. However, the Council said the file material was likely deleted by its IT department in the course of its efforts to manage the volume of data storage. Ms X says, in fact, no equality impact assessment was done.
13. The other aspect of the complaint is that the Council said it would review the parking arrangements at the club before the start of the 2021 football season. The review would be done as part of the Council’s role. Ms X says the review is still outstanding although she provided correspondence in which she queried the review being done by the Council. Ms X says the Council picked a game when there was low attendance and so its assessment was flawed.

Analysis

14. Having reviewed the full detail of the Council’s previous investigation and Ms X’s present complaint, I do not consider this is a matter the Ombudsman should now investigate.
15. This is because it is not proportionate for the Ombudsman to conduct a new investigation. Ms X’s claimed injustice – that she is negatively affected by parking provision at the football club – involves a matter that is ultimately the responsibility of the football club and not the Council. I do not find that the issue of what a council officer submitted to the Ombudsman affects the matter of the availability and operation of disabled access at the club. If Ms X considers the football club is discriminating against people with mobility related disability then she should seek redress from the club directly.
16. As to the matter of the review of access arrangements at the club, the Council has a role through the local safety advisory group to consider changes to existing access arrangements in the interests of public safety. Ms X says a review that was due before the 2020/21 season is still to be completed. It may be the review is still outstanding.
17. I do not now consider an investigation by the Ombudsman into this matter is warranted. This is because the Council is not responsible for parking arrangements at the club even though it has a role on the local safety advisory group.
18. I note Ms X considers the review/action taken by the Council to be inadequate. However, I do not consider her concerns about the adequacy of the review/action warrant pursuit by the Ombudsman. The central point remains that the club considers there is alternative parking provision available. Ms X maintains her disagreement with the conclusion. But this was a point considered by the Ombudsman previously and I do not see that the recent review changes the material facts. It is not proportionate to investigate the matter again.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I discontinued the investigation and closed this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved through further pursuit of this matter by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman