Summary: Mr X complains the Council is breaching the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against disabled cyclists. We do not intend to investigate this complaint. This is because only the courts can decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act. And the responses show the Council has considered Mr X’s needs and balanced those against those of everyone. We cannot consider the merits of this decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council is breaching the Equality Act 2010 by forcing all cyclists to dismount along certain sections of a dedicated cycle trail.
2. He says he has disabilities which mean walking is difficult and painful. Therefore, he cannot dismount and walk, so the council is in effect barring him from accessing the whole trail.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council says it assessed the risk to all users if the trail to try and reduce so that everyone can enjoy the shared space. However, it Is aware accidents occur because of but not limited to the following:
• cyclists may ride to fast
• cyclists may not comply with restrictions; and
• pedestrians failing to consider cyclists

As a result, the Council decided to make cyclists dismount for short stretches of the train, in busy areas. This restriction applies between 10am and 6pm during May to September. In less busy areas, cyclists are required are required to travel slowly. Alternative routes via the road are available to avoid the restricted areas.

7. The Council says the decision to restrict cycling in a few busy places which are shared with pedestrians, at certain times, is based on risk. It says it understands Mr X’s frustration, but the matter has been discussed with the Health and Safety Officer, the Equalities Officer and the County Council which is a partner organisation.
8. From the information provided by Mr X and the Council, I consider the Council has shown the Council gave due regard to its public sector equality duties. This is because the Council considered the risks to everyone using the trail when introducing the Public Space Protection Order.
9. 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 an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
10. In this case, the Council has shown it has properly considered safety and accessibility to all users and given due regard to the public sector equality duty. We are therefore unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of its public sector equality duties. And only the courts can decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman