The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to permit an electric vehicle charging cable to be laid across a footpath. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement, and Miss Y has not suffered significant personal injustice.
The complaint
Miss Y complains about her neighbour being permitted to lay an electric vehicle (EV) charging cable across a footpath from their property to their car. Miss Y says the Council is actively encouraging an offence. She also says it has not considered the welfare of vulnerable and elderly people living on the street, who must step over the cable.
Miss Y also complains about the Council’s decision to erect a fence, preventing vehicles parking on a field in response to her neighbour’s complaint. She says this is unfair, and that her neighbour’s complaint was dealt with more favourably to hers.
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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss Y complained to the Council about her neighbour using an EV cable between their property and car, which lays across the footpath. The Council explained it had investigated this, and that several strategies were discussed with her neighbour to minimise the risk. This included using a yellow cable during the day, and an illuminated solar panel during the night, to increase visibility. The Council says it does not consider the cable to cause significant risk of obstruction or likelihood of injury and is therefore satisfied her neighbour can continue to lay it across the footpath.
Miss Y says the Council are actively encouraging her neighbour’s committal of an offence. However, the Council has discretion whether or not to prosecute when an offence has been committed It is entitled to use its professional judgement when considering this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
Miss Y says the Council quickly erected a fence to prevent vehicles parking on a field, when her neighbour reported this. She feels her neighbour’s complaint was dealt with more favourably than hers. The Council explained that it took necessary action to prevent unauthorised vehicular access to this area, which it is entitled to do. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint. There is also insufficient evidence of Miss Y suffering significant personal injustice.
Miss Y says the Council has discriminated against her. Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic. I acknowledge Miss Y feels she has been treated unfairly, but I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest the Council has discriminated against her or treated her differently because of her disability.
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.
Miss Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Miss Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman