The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to allow temporary structures to be retained in a local park.
There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Even if there were fault, the matter does not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X held his wedding at a venue in a Council-owned park. He complains the Council has allowed businesses in the park to install and retain structures there, in breach of planning regulations.
Mr X says the presence of the structures marred his wedding day. He says he had to pay to try to screen them out, and the matter caused stress and upset. He wants the Council to use its enforcement powers to get the businesses to dismantle the structures immediately.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council made a provision to temporarily allow some structures in its parks and other places. It says this was done to support business while they cope with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, giving them more space for social distancing and to operate more safely. The Council reviewed its decision and extended the provision until September 2022 for some structures, including those at the park venue.
Councils must often balance the competing priorities of different groups when making their decisions. Officers took the view that supporting local businesses to survive the pandemic and its ongoing consequences should temporarily take precedence over the full control of all structures in its parks. That was a decision the Council was also entitled to make for structures on land it owns or manages.
We cannot go behind a council decision unless there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence the process the Council followed here involved such fault to justify an investigation. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Even if there were fault by the Council here, the presence of the structures at the venue on Mr X’s wedding day is not enough injustice to warrant investigation. I recognise Mr X did not like how they looked so decided to incur costs to conceal them. But the impact on Mr X does not amount to a significant personal injustice which would justify us using our resources to investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating; and even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman