Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to maintain a permissive path. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to maintain a permissive path properly. He said he had mobility difficulties, and the condition of the path made it inaccessible to him during winter months. He wants the Council to complete a risk assessment of the path and make improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said the path was not a public right of way or part of the highway, but a permissive path. Therefore, there were no specefic standards that applied in terms of accessibility or the surfacing of the path. It said it inspected the path quarterly to make sure that vegetation was not encroaching on to the path. It said the path was in a satisfactory condition, but there were wet and muddy patches which was not unusual for the type of path.
6. The Council said it was not possible for it to provide a bound surface on all pathways because of the cost of installation and maintenance, but where possible it would respond to specefic concerns. It asked Mr X to confirm the specefic locations he experienced difficulties. The Council also apologised for any confusion in its handling of the complaint when Mr X first contacted it.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council regularly inspects the path to prevent overgrowth. It has asked Mr X to tell it if there is a specific location causing difficulty is so it can take remedial action if needed. It has also explained the limitations on surfacing materials. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered how it maintains the path. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The Council has apologised for any initial confusion and explained that its contact with him was to understand the exact nature of his complaint. There is nothing to indicate the Council’s actions caused Mr X a significant injustice. In addition, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman