The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to close a bridge because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council refused to close a bridge until work was completed. He said he was concerned about public safety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the Mr X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened The Council leased some land to a third party to build a bridge. The third party has not completed the work and Mr X asked the Council to close the bridge and access to it, citing safety concerns.
In its complaint response, the Council: explained the process it went through in 2022 to agree the lease and the project to build the bridge; confirmed the third party is responsible for the management of the bridge and its access ramps, and had public liability insurance; and noted the gradient to the approach of the bridge on the land leased by the Council had been reduced.
In conclusion, the Council said it was satisfied the third party was actively managing the situation and did not believe the bridge should be closed or fenced off but confirmed it would continue to monitor the situation.
My assessment
We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about or from the point they became aware of them. The Council agreed the lease to the third party more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us and there is no evidence to suggest Mr X could not complain to us sooner about that. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify our involvement. Therefore, we will not investigate any complaint about the granting of the lease.
We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision not to close the bridge or restrict access was wrong. Unless there was fault in the way the Council made its decision, we could not comment on it. If we found fault in the decision-making process, we could not substitute our own decision for that of the Council but we may ask the Council to reconsider its decision.
In this case, the Council has considered relevant factors and decided the bridge did not need to be closed. It is keeping the matter under review. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and, given the Council is keeping its decision under review, it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman