Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in replacing a section of wooden fencing on a road running alongside a creek. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s delay in replacing a section of wooden fencing on a road running alongside a creek. He is concerned an accident may occur due to the proximity of a 5m drop next to the road.

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 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council with his safety concerns about a section of missing fencing alongside a road used by people and vehicles which he wants replaced.
7. The Council responded to explain that as the fencing was not a pedestrian guardrail, a road restraint system or a stock proofing fence, it did not meet the criteria for an immediate repair. Instead, it told him it has been considered under the Council’s routine maintenance rather than as a safety defect and it will prioritise such work in accordance with its normal scheme.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils where the right steps have been followed and the relevant evidence and information considered. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it and we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman