Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street furniture. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained about the Council’s installations of bollards outside a local school. Mr Y says the bollards prevent him from easily accessing his child’s school to allow him to drop off and pick up his child due to a disability. He also complained about how the complaint was dealt with, as he feels this took too long. He says this caused him further upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council installed bollards along a driveway leading to a local park and school following several near miss accidents and an accident involving an injury due to inconsiderate driving in the area close to school run times. The bollards were to remain in place at these peak times to protect the safety of children, staff and parents outside the school.
7. However, Mr Y complained to the Council that the bollards prevented him from accessing the driveway to park his car as close as possible to the school due to a disability so he could pick up and drop off his children on time.
8. The Council initially responded in October 2022, before responding fully in June 2023. It acknowledged Mr Y’s difficulty, explained the reasoning behind the use of the bollards and the reduction in the traffic safety concerns around the school.
9. It added that the school had agreed for a parking space to be accessible in the car park in the nursery next door to the school to allow Mr Y to park his vehicle and get his children to school on time without needing to use the driveway. It also apologised for any inconvenience caused to his family by the bollards being in place. It did not however find fault and referred Mr Y to us.

Analysis

10. 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.
11. The Council has been able to show it considered factors such as road safety, numbers of near misses and the previous measures taken by the school to try to address the problem, before the installation of the bollards. As it has properly considered the decision with reference to relevant factors, it is unlikely we would have sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. Further, the Council has worked with the school to allow an adjustment to be made to accommodate Mr Y’s disability. The school has providing him with a car parking space in the nursery next door as an alternative to using the driveway as he did previously. The Council has therefore considered the issue and made adjustments to alleviate any barrier to Mr Y dropping his children off at school caused by the bollards. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in its decision-making process to justify investigating.
13. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of complaint, we will not investigate how the Council has dealt with Mr Y’s complaint as this would not be a good use of public money.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman