Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a bollard installed close to the front of his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and it has already taken suitable action to resolve the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a bollard the Council installed close to the front of his property. Mr X says the Council failed to explain why it installed a taller, highways type, bollard rather than a shorter wooden one like it had previously installed in front of nearby properties. Mr X says the Council discriminated against him and some other local properties with damage to the front did not have bollards installed. It also failed to inform him it was going to install the bollard.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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, or
• we are satisfied with the actions a Council has taken. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), and (7) as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about a bollard it installed in the grass area to the front of his property. Mr X said the Council should have installed a shorter, wooden bollard which it previously installed in front of properties nearby. Mr X said the bollard was unsightly and taller than the wooden bollards. He said the Council had discriminated against him in installing this type of bollard in front of his property.
8. The Council investigated. It explained the bollard was put in place to protect the verge and footway after a routine inspection found the footway was damaged due to vehicle overrun as Mr X’s driveway was larger than the crossover. It confirmed the wooden bollards were not available at the time of installation and this is why a different bollard was used. It acknowledged it should have notified Mr X the bollard was being installed and it apologised to Mr X for the concern it caused him. It said it would arrange to install a shorter bollard, similar in appearance to the wooden bollards, as soon as it was able to.
9. The Council’s supplier was subsequently unable to provide a suitable replacement bollard and so, in order to resolve the matter, the Council carried out work on the existing bollard to reduce its height to that of the wooden bollards. It acknowledged it was not the exact type of bollard sought however, it took this action in order to resolve the matter as best it could without the wooden bollards being available.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council apologised to Mr X for failing to inform him the bollard was being installed. This provides a suitable remedy on that point. It has explained why the bollard was installed and why it could not use the wooden bollards previously used nearby. It considered and acted on Mr X’s concerns about the appearance of the bollard and has taken suitable action to try to resolve the issue for Mr X taking account of the fact that the preferred wooden bollards were not available. There is nothing further we would add were to also investigate. Having considered the information provided I have seen no evidence to support Mr X’s view the Council discriminated against him in deciding to install the bollard. It did so due to the damage and it is a decision it is entitled to make.
11. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to ask whether the Council could have done things better or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman