The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to move a bench in a local park. Even if there has been fault by the Council in its decision-making process, the location of the bench does not cause Ms X such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Ms X is a local resident and user of a nearby Council-run park. She complains the Council moved a bench back to a location near the entrance to the park’s dog run.
Ms X says the location of the bench forces park users to pass near dogs in the dog run area, which causes them fear. She says they are having difficulty enjoying the park as a result. Ms X wants the Council to remove the bench entirely, or move it back to the middle of the dog run, where it was located for about 16 months.
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to relocate the bench within the dog run area of the park, which is near one of the park’s entrances from the street. The Council has accepted it should have advised Ms X about its decision and that the earlier relocation was for a trial period. But even if there has been fault in the Council’s process here, it does not cause such injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation. The new location of the bench does not stop Ms X safely using the park. She and others concerned about entering near the dog run may access the park using another entrance. We recognise the matter may have caused Ms X frustration and annoyance. But the personal injustice it has caused to Ms X is not significant enough to justify the use of public money to investigate this complaint.
Ms X mentions the impact of the Council’s decision to move the bench on others. But we cannot take account of injustices claimed on behalf of others by complainants who are not appointed representatives.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the matters complained of do not cause significant enough injustice to her to warrant us using public money to investigate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman