Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has not dealt with his reports of vehicles driving along a pedestrian path by his home. The Council failed to refer the matter to its Anti-Social Behaviour team to consider whether the Council has powers to address the issues. The Council will properly consider the matters Mr Y has reported, apologise and pay £100 for the avoidable time and trouble caused by the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to deal with his reports of vehicles driving along a pedestrian footpath close to his home.
2. Mr Y says the Council’s inaction creates ongoing injustice to himself and all users of the road because driving on the path is unsafe and may cause accident or injury.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr Y by email and gave him the opportunity to talk with me by telephone. I considered the information he provided including video footage of the matters complained about.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
7. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr Y lives close to a newly built housing estate. The plans for the estate included a pedestrian footpath which links to Mr Y’s road. The estate has now been built and Mr Y has video evidence to show that vehicles sometimes drive along the pedestrian path as a short-cut between his road and the estate. He also reports an increase in incidents of anti-social behaviour and littering. Mr Y has reported his concerns to the Council and his local MP but complained to the LGSCO when he became frustrated about the lack of action taken.
9. When Mr Y reported his concerns, the Council advised him that nothing more could be done from a planning perspective because the path was built in accordance with the approved plans. This meant there was not a planning breach which the Council could enforce against.
10. The Council also told Mr Y that it would not deal with any anti-social behaviour (ASB) concerns because these were a matter for the local police force. Mr Y says he has informed the police, but they assured him the housing developer would install a bollard to prevent further instances of vehicles using the path.
11. To date the developer has not installed a bollard. However, the developer did install a low wooden ‘trip-rail’ where the path adjoins Mr Y’s road. The Council assumed this had been successful and would prevent further vehicle use. Mr Y sent a video clip to the Council on 9 November 2021 showing a car driving down the path. Although the trip rail marginally decreases the width of the entrance of the path, the gap is still large enough for cars to pass through.
12. In response to our enquiries the Council said the trip rail was effective. However, the Council should have known from Mr Y’s previous correspondence that it was not. The Council also confirmed that it had not, at that point, referred the matter to its ASB team or had any liaison with the local police force who the Council had said were solely responsible for resolving the problems.
13. This is fault. The Council should have considered Mr Y’s concerns as possible ASB when he made contact in 2021. Although the offence of driving without due care and attention is a matter within the police’s jurisdiction, the Council does have the power to consider ASB arising from vehicle nuisance and can consider the use of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO).
14. The Council’s actions have caused an injustice to Mr Y which it will remedy with the actions listed below.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr Y for failing to properly deal with his concerns and pay £100 for the avoidable time and trouble this caused;
• Provide evidence to the LGSCO to show it has referred Mr Y’s concerns to its ASB team; and
• Keep Mr Y regularly updated with the progress of its considerations and any action subsequently taken.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice which the Council will remedy with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman