The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to construct beach huts in accordance with the original specification. This is because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot determine claims for personal injury.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has built beach huts at the wrong height. He says this results in a safety hazard to members of the public as there are low hanging fascia boards with sharp edges at head-height. Mr X has himself suffered an injury and says he is aware of other people who have also hit their heads.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he has been pursuing this matter since May 2019 but he only referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2022. His complaint is therefore more than two years late. I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing the complaint to us and I have therefore decided not to exercise our discretion to investigate it.
However, even if Mr X’s complaint was not late it is unlikely we would investigate it. This is because there is no requirement for the Council to raise the height of the beach huts as Mr X would like. While Mr X considers the beach huts do not comply with the plans approved as part of the grant of planning permission the planning process is designed to deal with planning issues. This includes points such as overbearing, loss of light and overlooking, rather than the possibility that someone may walk into the development and suffer injury.
Mr X’s personal injustice lies in the fact that he hit his head on one of the fascia boards and he has made a claim to the Council for compensation for his injury. The Council has denied liability and if Mr X is not satisfied with its response to his claim it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. This right applies to anyone who may have suffered an injury in similar circumstances and it would be for the courts to determine if the Council is liable and the extent of any compensation due.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and any claim for personal injury is a matter for the courts.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman