The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of consultation with residents over the use of a park for two events over a single day. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to consult with residents near a park which was used for a one-day event involving a funfair and separate community functions. He says insufficient attention was given to public safety, risk assessments and disturbance from noise and parking in the locality.
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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X lives near a park which was used for a community event and a funfair in the summer for a single day. He says the Council failed to consult with residents who were opposed to the event and that it caused parking in the area to be suspended for a time to allow access to the site. He contacted the Council before the event to express his concern about public safety for those attending the event and the Council’s response was unsatisfactory.
The Council told Mr X that it operates the parks in its area and that there was no requirement for consultation for a public event in a public park. Residents were aware of the event and parking was suspended around the area to allow access for the funfair and other equipment. It told him all the necessary event insurance, risk assessment and licensing requirements were considered before the event.
The park has permissions to be used for public events on not more than 28 days a year and this does not require planning or other approval. The Police were also involved with the alcohol licence application for one of the events and did not object to this.
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 was clearly aware of the proposed events and passed his concerns to the Council. His concern for the safety of the public attending was not a matter which affected him directly as he was not obliged to attend. The Council was satisfied that the necessary precautions were in place and no significant incident occurred.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of consultation with residents over the use of a park for two events over a single day. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman