Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to install bollards outside the complainant’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has refused to install bollards on the pavement outside her property. She says she experiences persistent problems with vehicles obstructing access, damaging the pavement and creating a safety concern for herself and other vulnerable people. Mrs X believes the decision is unfair and inconsistent, as her neighbours have bollards outside their properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision not to install bollards outside her property. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to install the bollards, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that the Council:
• is entitled to reach its own professional judgement on how to allocate its limited resources.
• has explained the bollards outside the neighbouring property were installed several years ago under different circumstances.
• says it is now unusual for bollards to be installed outside residential properties in these circumstances, and it has developed new ways and approaches to tackle such issues. In that regard, the Council has added the location to the request list for the adoption of a parking prohibition zone in the area.
• has advised Mrs X to contact the Police about any driving on the footway, and to report any footway damage to its Highways team for inspection/repair as necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to install bollards.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman