Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to maintain public areas, including parks, woodlands and highways. This is because there is insufficient evidence the complainant has directly been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr Q) complains about an alledged failure by the Council to maintain a number of public spaces, including parks, woodlands and public highways. Specifically, Mr Q says:

• Pathways in a wood have become obstructed.
• Poor maintenance of steps in a park which have become worn.
• Part of the river in a park has been blocked by vandals which has led to bacteria presenting a risk to dogs.
• Poor maintenance of a public highway.

2. In summary, Mr Q says the above issues are a risk to public safety in general. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to resolve these matters.

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has directly been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr Q would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to fault by the Council. While I recognise what Mr Q says about the issues presenting risks to the public in general, I do not consider this to be a matter which has directly caused him serious loss, harm or distress to warrant our involvement. The claimed injustice in relation to public safety is speculative, though the Council has noted the issues raised by Mr Q and provided a response to him.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman