Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Only the courts can decide if the adjustments a Council has considered are sufficient to meet the legal requirements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council extending vehicle access rights over a brideleway next to her home. She says this has increased traffic and presents a danger to pedestrians and disabled users such as herself. She says the Council failed to consider the effect of additional traffic as its duty under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
3. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• marriage and civil partnership,
• pregnancy and maternity,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex, and
• sexual orientation.
   

4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X says the Council introduced vehicular access over a bridleway to one of its car parks when it compulsory purchased the site. As a result, there has been increased vehicle usage and as someone with poor mobility she says she is unable to avoid traffic quickly. Mrs X wants the Council to provide adequate surface, pavements and lighting as there is on surrounding adopted roads.
9. The Council accepted that it had failed to properly consider the implications of the additional vehicle rights when it introduced the new access. It told Mrs X it would consider what measures could be taken as reasonable adjustments.
10. The Council considered four options for the route and concluded that additional signage and road markings were the most feasible measures which could be introduced without affecting the rights of the wider public. It did not consider the measures suggested by Mrs X as being proportionate for the type of route. The fact that it had only purchased the width of the carriageway meant it could not introduce footways without reducing the width to an impractical level.
11. The Council has considered what reasonable adjustments should apply to the access changes which it made to the bridleway. We cannot say whether this meets the requirements of the legislation. Only the courts can decide if a breach of the Equality Act has taken place.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman