Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the closure of a footbridge. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Environment Agency and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks. Furthermore any injustice caused to Mr X by the closure is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the closure of a footbridge close to his home. Mr X would like the bridge to be repaired and reopened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Environment Agency has said it decided to close a footbridge close to Mr X’s home because of safety concerns. The Authority has concluded that major refurbishment works are needed to make the bridge safe. It has said that it is liaising with professionals about the works and will then submit a funding application to carry out the works.
6. The Authority has told Mr X it expects the footbridge to be closed for the remainder of the year and has said that a diversion route for pedestrians to use is in place.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we could add to the investigation carried out by the Council. It has fully explained to Mr X the reasons for the closure and what action it is taking. We also can’t achieve what he wants which is for the bridge to be opened immediately. We cannot tell the Authority what work to prioritise.
8. Furthermore, whilst the closure may cause Mr X a certain level of frustration, I do not consider this to have caused him a significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement. This is because the Authority has arranged a diversion, so an alternative route is available for him and other residents to use.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot add to the Councils response and the matter has not caused him a personal injustice significant enough for our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman