Summary: The complainant is concerns about the maintenance and provision of foot and cycle paths where he lives. We will not investigate this complaint and we are unlikely to find fault. And we do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council does not cater for cyclists and walkers and gives horse riders priority status.
2. Mr X says the Council:
• refuses to upgrade a link to enable commuters to access the local station and school without getting covered in mud
• failed to complete a walking and cycling route that was started 20 years ago
• failed to create a walking/cycling link to Manchester Airport
3. He says cycling in traffic is distressful and off-road cycling on poor surfaces means paying for cleaning his clothes and increased bicycle maintenance. And because of dangerous conditions for walking/cycling he has to use his car which is more expensive.
4. Mr X wants the Council to stop catering for horse riding and instead create properly surfaced cycle routs to complaint with the Governments wishes to reduce car use and combat climate change and obesity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint.
7. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X complained to the Council about the condition of several foot/cycle paths in the area and the incursion of horses and the damage they cause to the paths. He also complained about the lack of a cycle friendly link from the local area to the Manchester Airport relief road.
9. The Council told Mr X:
• It shares his concerns that horses erode paths, many of which are not suitable for equestrians and are not bridleways. Officers continue to review the situation and seek to act should it receive information as to who is responsible.
• It is considering whether to change the status of one path to a bridleway and it does not consider new signs are necessary.
• One route Mr X complains about is a bridleway not owned by the Council. It does not need the same level of maintenance as a footpath.
• Local stakeholders and residents have not accepted previous designs for a link to the airport relief road. The Council is trying to access funding to enable further work to take place.
• It is reviewing access control measures for paths and is consulting stakeholders. This is to ensure accessibility and equality issues are addressed and understood, while managing concerns about anti-social behaviour in some locations.
10. I understand Mr X is not happy with the standard of foot and cycle path maintenance or the provision of such paths. However, the Council has explained the action it is taking, and I consider we are unlikely to find fault. Also, I believe that even if there were fault (which I am not making a finding on), I am not persuaded the personal injustice Mr X claims is so significant that it warrants investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. And I do not consider that even if there were any fault, Mr X has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman