The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to renege on its agreed arrangement for vehicle access to the complainant’s home. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the result the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mrs P, says the Council has reneged on its arrangement for vehicle access to her home.
She wants: One lockable bollard removed immediately and key for the remaining one given out as previously arranged the Council to remind residents who do not have right of access not to block the path or harass traders an apology
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation further investigation would not lead to a different outcome we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mrs P and the Council the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code; and Mrs P’s comments on the draft version of this decision
My assessment
Mrs P says access to her front door and property is by a footpath. She says she and her neighbours have had right of access for vehicles over this for many years.
The Council installed bollards to block vehicle access. Following complaints, it agreed to remove them and install one lockable bollard with keys supplied to all properties with access.
Instead, the Council installed three lockable bollards and did not provide residents with keys. One of the bollards has since been removed.
Mrs P says that following complaints from residents that do not need access, the Council held a meeting with council officer, a local Councillor, representatives from the police and other residents. . Mrs P says it chose a date for the meeting which it knew she could not attend. However, as there were a number of attendees, I do not consider this to be evidence of fault.
At the meeting efforts were made to find a solution as some residents want to keep the bollards and others, including Mrs P, want the Council to revert to its original option.
Notes from the meeting provided to Mrs P by the Councillor, show someone read out her comments in full as she could not attend in person. Views of both sets of residents were presented. Following this, attempts were made to reach a compromise. Those present agreed the Council would hold the key. If large deliveries require access, people can contact the Council for a key. It will take the registration number so any damage can be accounted for. A review will take place after six months. If the arrangement is not working, the matter will have to be settled through the courts. This arrangement will be reviewed in six months.
I understand Mrs P wants the Council to honour its original agreement to instal one lockable bollard and provide residents with a key. However, the Council says other residents objected to this arrangement and it has attempted to reach a compromise, agreeing to review the situation in six months.
The Ombudsman cannot require the Council to revert to the original proposed access arrangement. Nor can we decide whether there should any number bollards installed or not. Having heard from a number of residents interested parties, the Council decided not to go ahead with its original proposal and instead attempted to reach a compromise, with an agreement to review the matter in sic months. I accept Mrs P disagrees with this, however having considered the matter and heard from interested parties, it is a decision the Council is entitled to take. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mrs P is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman