Summary: Mrs X complains about a statement made by a council officer on the impact of coloured pedestrian crossings on disabled people. Mrs X also says the Council constructed the coloured pedestrian crossing in breach of its public sector equality duty. I have discontinued my investigation of this complaint.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mrs X. Mrs X complains about a statement made by a council officer on the impact of coloured pedestrian crossings on disabled people. The officer said the Council:

“wanted to hear concerns.. but the crossings have been in place for a year, and we aren’t aware of any complaints from people who have had difficulty using the”.

2. Mrs X says an average person would infer from the quote that there were no problems whereas the Equality Act 2010 demands proactivity. Mrs X also says the Council constructed the coloured pedestrian crossing in breach of its public sector equality duty.
3. Mrs X feels emotional, upset, diminished and ignored. She says seeing a quote claiming the Council wants to hear concerns but is not aware of any problems is inexplicable, hurtful, dangerous and contemptuous. Mrs X says she was gaslighted, told she was wrong, told there was no evidence and ignored.
4. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise and issue a public retraction of the statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the complaint and background information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mrs X by telephone. I invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The injustice test is an important factor in the Ombudsman’s decision on whether to investigate a complaint. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of a council or service provider.
9. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using the complaint as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign.
10. The Council installed two coloured pedestrian crossings in September 2020. Mrs X wrote to the Council to state her concerns about the crossings in October 2020. This was followed up by an article in the local newspaper in October 2020. Mrs X was referred to as a political party’s spokesperson and made her remarks in the article in that role.
11. The statement Mrs X complains about was made by a council officer in response to another article in the same newspaper a year later. The headline of the article stated a claim by the political party that colourful road crossings are hazardous for disabled and elderly people. Mrs X is a spokesperson for that party.
12. The article states the party had raised the issue with the council several times and that a disabled rights group had joined the party in highlighting the dangers posed by coloured pedestrian crossings.
13. The statement by the council officer was clearly a response on the record to the claim made by the political party about the pedestrian crossings. It is not now for the Ombudsman to adjudicate on the worth of the statement.
14. I do not find Mrs X suffered a personal injustice because of the statement to now warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
15. I have considered whether this complaint raises an issue of wider public interest and so should be investigated by the Ombudsman. I do not find there is a wider public interest here. The pedestrian crossings have been in place for two years and the Ombudsman has not received complaints from users of the crossings in the time since the crossings were installed.
16. I have discontinued this investigation into Mrs X’s concerns about the officer’s statement because of its link to the political campaign. However, Mrs X may now make a complaint to the Council about her own use of the pedestrian crossings and the Council should consider and respond to such a complaint. That complaint would be considered by the Ombudsman should Mrs X approach us again as the complaint would be made in a personal capacity.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued this investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman