The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to fit a handrail to steps at a nature reserve, because Mr B does not have a personal injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.
The complaint
Mr B has noticed elderly people struggling on steps to a nature reserve and has asked the Council to fit a handrail for safety. It took the Council two years to confirm it would not fit a handrail. Mr B believes the Council’s decision puts users of the steps at risk.
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr B’s concerns for the safety of others, but he does not claim any personal injustice in his complaint to the Ombudsman about the lack of a handrail.
The Council failed to meet the timescales it set in its complaint handling, and this would have been frustrating for Mr B, but that would not warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
If we were to investigate the Council’s decision not to fit a handrail it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Professional officers have considered Mr B’s request for a handrail and decided it is not required at this time. The Council explains it is public choice to use the steps as there are other ways to access the nature reserve. The Council’s website gives information about disabled access.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because he does not have a personal injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman