The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a fine issued to Mr X for an expired scaffolding permit as any fault by the Council has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s process for dealing with scaffolding permits is not fit for purpose and as a result he was wrongly fined £170.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under the Highways Act 1980, the Council requires a fee to be paid for a permit to erect scaffolding on the public highway. A charge of £170 is payable to the Council if scaffolding remains erected after a permit has expired. Mr X complains that he had to pay this fee when the Council failed to notify him that the permit had expired for scaffolding his contractor was using.
In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council says the responsibility for renewing permits lies with contractors and that the Council does not issue reminders.
The injustice to Mr X in this case was caused by the contractor not renewing the scaffolding permit. I have not seen evidence of Council fault causing Mr X an injustice and for this reason, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing Mr X an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman