Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against a bridleway obstruction reported by Mr X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and because the obstruction has now been cleared by the landowner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take action under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the removal of an obstruction along the bridleway from which he accesses his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that access along a bridleway for which he has a right of way was being obstructed for vehicle access by the landowner who had not cut back vegetation. He said the Council was obliged to take action to remove the obstruction under Section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act.
7. The Council carried out a site visit but advised Mr X that as there was sufficient space for Mr X to access his property, it did not intend to take enforcement action. It also noted that as a follow up it had been in touch with the landowner who said they had plans to cut the vegetation back shortly.
8. In responding to our initial enquiries, the Council confirmed this work has now been carried out by the landowner and that it had been told delay had occurred because the field alongside the bridleway had been too wet for a tractor.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question the professional judgement of officers if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information in coming to their decisions. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and visited the site but having done so it decided no further action was required. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make and we cannot review its merits.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and because the obstruction has now been cleared by the landowner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman