Summary: Mrs D complains the Council did not consult residents before it stopped locking park gates near her home. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council, completed the investigation and have not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to consult residents before it stopped locking the park gates near her home. Mrs D states this has resulted in a rise in anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by 'maladministration' and 'service failure'. I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I have spoken to Mrs D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In November 2021 the Council produced a report to the Cabinet about changes to its grounds maintenance contract which was due to end in 2022. Part of the existing contract paid for a patrol service to clear and lock six park sites. It noted there was an inconsistent approach across the area because only a limited number of sites were locked. It proposed to discontinue the locking service. The Council’s Cabinet considered the report and agreed with the recommendations. This is set out in the public notes of the meeting. In September 2022 the new contract came into place and the park gates next to Mrs D’s home stopped being locked. On 15 September Mrs D emailed the Council asking why this had happened and reported a rise in ASB. The Council replied the same day explaining what had taken place with the contract. It advised there was a community locking group scheme open to residents and referred Mrs D to its website. It also advised about reporting ASB. Mrs D lodged a formal complaint and the Council responded on 23 September. It set out its budgetary considerations with the contact and reiterated the option of a community locking scheme. In October Mrs D escalated her complaint and the Council replied on 13 October. It did not uphold the complaint.

What should have happened

7. When a contract is due to end the Council should review it. Officers will produce a report to the Council’s Cabinet recommending whether to change parts of the contract before it is put out for tender. The Cabinet will consider the report and decided whether or not to approve the measures.
8. There is no duty on the Council to consult residents about changes to grounds maintenance contracts.

Was there fault by the Council

9. Mrs D feels the Council should have notified residents about the proposed changes to securing the park. I have not found any evidence of fault. The Council has no statutory duty to consult residents about proposed changes to its grounds maintenance contractors, including locking park gates. The Council adhered to the correct process in changing the provisions of the contract. In addition, it is not required to publicise those changes. I appreciate Mrs D is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the Council, but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decision taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman