Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out works to a public bridleway. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. In addition, if Mr X considers bridleway users are damaging his property, these are private matters best considered by a court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to widen and lower the height of a bridleway next to his land. He says vehicles passing along it are damaging his field wall and, due to the raised height, walkers are climbing over his wall rather than using a public stile, causing further damage.

He wants the Council to widen and lower the height of the bridleway.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils are responsible for maintaining the rights of way network within their area which includes footpaths and bridleways. Duties include maintaining surfaces, clearing excess vegetation, and removing any obstructions.
8. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council said the bridleway was listed on the Definitive Map as a public bridleway with a recorded width of 3m. It also acted as a private access road for several properties. It said it had carried out two site visits to inspect the bridleway. Its investigation concluded the bridleway was approx. 3m wide and in good condition.
9. It said any damage to his wall caused by vehicles using the bridleway was a private matter between him and the owner of the vehicle(s) causing the damage. It did not consider there was any benefit to bridleway users to widen the route and so did not agree to his request to carry out works.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has appropriately considered Mr X’s request but concluded that as the bridleway is the required width and in good condition, it will not take further action. This decision appears in line with its duties. The Council had a duty to maintain the bridleway but is not responsible for the actions of those using the bridleway.
11. The Council has correctly advised Mr X that any damage to his field wall caused by bridleway users is a private matter between himself and the person(s) causing the damage. Private claims for damages are best considered by a court. It is reasonable for Mr X to consider taking private court action if he considers others are responsible for damage to his property.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman