The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over scaffolding erected on commercial premises for an extended period of time. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in seeking the removal of scaffolding from commercial premises in a town centre which he says cause unnecessary obstruction to pedestrians.
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: 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he complained about scaffolding on businesses in his local town centre which has been left without any sign of works for a long period of time. He wrote to the Council in March 2022 and asked it to explain why the owners had not been required to remove it as it did not appear to be in use for works.
The Council did not reply until May. It told him the weeks of delay had been caused because he sent his letter to a department which did not deal with these matters and it was not forwarded for some time. The Council apologised for the delay and advised Mr X that it was in contact with the owners but that the formal procedure for seeking removal was not a simple process.
The Council was satisfied that the structure does not restrict the footway and that there is sufficient space for pedestrians. The footway is reasonably wide at this location and there remains 2 metres of clear area between the structure and the kerb.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
In this case Mr X does not live near the scaffolding and any inconvenience he may claim is not sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over scaffolding erected on commercial premises for an extended period of time. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman