Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to remove an electrical cabinet from outside the complainant’s business. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to remove an electrical cabinet which he says blocks the entrance to his business premises. Mr X says the Council has ignored safety risks and modern standards for the placement of street furniture and has failed to supply him with information he has requested about such matters. Mr X says his business is closed as the property is not usable. Mr X wants the Council to remove the cabinet and pay him compensation for business losses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection/access to information. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council said the electrical cabinet had been in place since 2009 with no recorded complaints or reported accessibility issues. The Council confirmed that as in its view the cabinet does not pose a safety concern and as it has no operational reason to remove it, removal could be arranged but the cost would have to be borne by Mr X.
8. For us to challenge the Council’s decision there must be evidence of fault in how it was made. I recognise Mr X disputes the Council’s assessment, but this does not equate to it being at fault, nor necessarily does Mr X’s claim that modern requirements differ from those that were in place when the cabinet was installed. The Council has assessed the matter, and, in its view, the cabinet does not pose a safety risk. It is entitled to reach this decision, and we will not investigate as I consider it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council in it coming to it.
9. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to supply information he requested regarding agreements in place with a previous occupant of his building. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent regulator in respect of information rights and is best placed to decide if the Council has dealt with Mr X’s request properly. As such, we will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and the ICO is best placed to assess the complaint about information rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman