Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of a bollard on a grassed area and footway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council installing a bollard on the entrance to a pedestrian access and open space which he says has prevented him from accessing his property for occasional deliveries. He wants the Council to remove the bollard so that his deliveries can continue in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he has had access over a pedestrian footway for occasional log deliveries each year, but the Council has now installed a bollard which prevents vehicles from accessing the land. He believes this was instigated by a neighbour with whom he has a dispute and that the Council has unreasonably inconvenienced him.
7. The Council says it has installed the bollard to prevent vehicles from driving over what is land unsuitable for vehicular use. The bollard is to safeguard the footway surface and any pedestrians from unauthorised vehicles. Mr X says he has seen Council and utility vehicles using similar areas. The Council says it as highway authority can permit utility and other maintenance vehicles from occasionally accessing open space in the course of their duties. Mr X has no legal easement to cross the land and the bollard has not affected his own property.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council is the highway authority and it has powers to install infrastructure where it believes it is required.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of a bollard on a grassed area and footway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman