Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s removal of a security barrier. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complained that, without notification and adequate reasons, the Council removed a security barrier which residents had installed with its consent. Mrs B told us this has breached residents’ security, non-residents are parking in spaces which the residents pay to maintain and anti-social behaviour in the area is increasing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mrs B provided and given her an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2015 a council planning officer stated in an email that, in his opinion, the barrier would not need planning permission if it was on private land and did not exceed one metre in height.
6. In her complaint to the Council Mrs B said in 2018 the Council had served notice to remove the barrier. Residents sought legal advice and help from their councillor. Mrs B said the Council had agreed a stay of execution in April 2019 pending a review meeting on an undecided date. Mrs B complained that residents heard nothing about the review meeting. The Council then removed the barrier without warning. Mrs B said there had been no problems while the barrier was in place. For example, she said refuse collectors had the security code and were able to collect refuse easily.
7. To put things right Mrs B wants the Council to restore the barrier.
8. In its response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Council said the barrier was on the highway which it maintains, not private land. The Council said officers in its Anti-Social Behaviour and Environment Team and the Fire Service were concerned about the fire risks if the barrier stayed in place. So it decided to remove the structure so that emergency and local services had access to all properties. The Council told Mrs B it has no plan to restore the barrier. The Council said it knew some residents were dissatisfied with the action it had taken but it had thought about the matter carefully before reaching its decision.
9. We are not an appeal body with powers to overturn a council decision. The question of whether the residents’ reasons for retaining the barrier outweighed the reason for removing it was a judgement for the Council’s officers. By giving notice in 2018 of its intention to remove the structure, residents had an opportunity to make their views known and raise the matter with their councillor. There is nothing to suggest there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process so we cannot question the merits of its decision even though Mrs B and other residents consider the removal of the barrier was not warranted. We would not be able to achieve the outcome Mrs B is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman