Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in repairing a pedestrian barrier and bollards at a road junction. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where there are pedestrian barriers and bollards at various places on the highway. He complains the Council:
1. took two years to repair a pedestrian barrier;
2. has not repaired some bollards at a local junction.
2. Mr X says he has been frustrated because the Council did not listen to him. He says he has lost time and expended effort while trying to get the barrier and bollards fixed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says it continued to assess the barrier to make sure it was safe while it was waiting for bespoke parts to repair it. There may have been fault by the Council in the time taken to repair the barriers. The Council also acknowledges communication errors between officers led to some delay in getting the bollards scheduled for repair after Mr X’s report, and with updating him. The Council says the bollards were fixed in April 2025 but Mr X’s June 2025 complaint to us shows he disagrees.
6. However, even if there have been such faults, and if the bollards are not yet fixed, we will not investigate. We do not investigate all complaints where there has been or may have been council fault. We must go on to consider what personal injustice any fault has caused to the person complaining.
7. We recognise Mr X has been annoyed and frustrated by the barriers and bollards being in disrepair and it is to his credit that he has sought these improvements in his area. But the barriers and bollards serve no greater function for Mr X or his property than they do for any other person regularly using the local highways. The injustice caused to him by their disrepair is similarly no greater than that caused to any such other person and is not sufficiently significant to justify an investigation. It was Mr X’s decision to expend time and effort pursuing the matters, a choice over which the Council had no control. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant injustice to him to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman