The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has installed inaccurate signs and benches which are not accessible for disabled people at a local park. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice. We cannot hold the Council responsible for the alleged criminal actions of third parties.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the signs and benches in a local park. She says signs saying dogs must be kept on leads should include an exemption for assistance dogs, and benches should not have back rests as this prevents her from using them.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council says it installed the signs around the park in response to a series of events involving dogs not being kept under control. It stands by the principle of having the signs in place but has agreed to arrange for stickers to be added to the signs advising the restriction does not apply to assistance dogs. This is the outcome Mrs X wanted and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more by investigating this issue further. While Mrs X says she was abused and attacked by members of the public for not complying with the signs we could not hold the Council responsible for this. Such actions may amount to criminality which the police are better placed to investigate.
The Council also confirms it has put in place a variety of seating options for members of the public to take account of the different needs of users; we could not therefore say it has failed to consider its duty to cater for the needs of disabled people. The Council is under no obligation to provide benches and not all users will find it difficult to use benches with backrests- indeed some people may prefer or require them. It cannot reasonably stop other or able-bodied people from using specific benches or ensure that all benches are available at all times; there is therefore the possibility that members of the public will not be able to access a bench suited to their needs. But this is not a significant injustice to Mrs X and it does not result from fault by the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman