Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not removing vegetation he reported which is overhanging a public right of way. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X and his wife caused by the matter to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a public right of way, a shared pedestrian path and cycle route with demarcated lanes. He complains the Council has failed to do its duty by not removing vegetation overhanging the route.
2. Mr X says he and his wife walks the footpath weekly. He says they have to be careful of overhanging brambles and walk on the cycle lane if the pedestrian lane is impeded. Mr X considers the situation unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.
3. Mr X wants the Council to accept the path needs to be maintained to a safe standard. He wants the Council to do more regular cutting back of the vegetation themselves, or get those responsible for the land next to the path to do it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council says it cuts back vegetation for which it is responsible once a year on rights of way. It says residents can report sections of paths which are impassable so officers can determine responsibility for the maintenance and clearance and organise works accordingly. The Council’s response does not say whether it has decided the matter reported by Mr X requires no action, but that appears to be its implicit final position.
7. Even if there has been fault by the Council in its response here, we will not investigate. Mr X’s photograph of the right of way shows a bramble branch overhanging it at roughly head height. The vegetation does not block the route and it remains passable. Mr X says he and his wife use the path once each week. We recognise this and other foliage would be a nuisance and annoyance to Mr X and his wife when they are using the route. They would have to move out of its way as they walked past or decide to use an alternative route. But the level of impact on them caused by this inconvenience does not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice warranting an investigation. We realise Mr X also considers the route unsafe for other users, but that would not be his or his wife’s personal injustice.
8. Mr X may report the matter to the Council should the impact of the vegetation next to, on or above the right of way increase. It would then be for the Council to determine whether it endangers users or obstructs use of the route to the extent that it requires works and, if so, what action its officers should take.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X and his family caused by the matter complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman