Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. Only the Courts could make a determination about any legal breach of disability discrimination legislation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council installing gates at an access point to a park which she is unable to negotiate due to her disability. She complained to the Council in 2018 about this but did not pursue it further. Recently the Council has padlocked its adjacent vehicle access gate, and this means she can no longer access with her car as an alternative to the kissing gates for pedestrians.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X says the Council introduced kissing gates on the access point to a park which she uses. She says she cannot use this type of gate and has been using the adjacent vehicle access gate until it was recently padlocked. She complained to the Council in 2018 and it advised her to use the main entrance to the park which has been provided with a ramp and better access. The vehicle access gate is only for the Council’s own vehicles and machinery to operate in the park.
8. Miss X says the Council has breached the requirements of the Equality Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Human Rights Act by not making reasonable adjustments for her access. The Council says it has made sufficient reasonable adjustments by making the main entrance accessible but not all entrances can be made compliant. It says the law only requires it to have regard to the acts and it does not have a duty to make all access points suitable for disabled needs.
9. It is clear that Miss X has been aware of the erection of the gates since 2013/14 when they were put in place. She made a complaint three years ago and it was reasonable for her to raise the matter with the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. We cannot determine if disability legislation has been breached where the Council has given consideration to this issue. It would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a remedy in the courts to this question.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. Only the Courts could make a determination about any legal breach of disability discrimination legislation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman