Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in relation to Ms X’s complaints about illegal activity on Open Access Land (OAL). This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council refuses to uphold the law regarding Open Access Land (OAL) and is biased towards its tenants who are breaking the rules by allowing dangerous behaviour on it. She says it refuses to follow The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act) and has misled the police in relation to the rules on OAL.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X has been communicating with the Council for some time about activities on land she walks on which she believes are illegal and against which the Council should take enforcement action.
7. The Council has considered her concerns and sought legal advice from its Legal Team. However, it has concluded there is insufficient evidence to confirm illegal activities have taken place and has told Ms X that such activities would be for the police to consider. It has advised her that it is not illegal to drive a vehicle on land or a bridleway when the consent of the landowner or farmer has been given which it says applies in this case. The Council has also confirmed that none of the area in question is CRoW Act land and so this legislation does not apply to it.
8. We do not act as a point of appeal and we cannot question the professional judgement of officers if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Legal advice was sought from the Council’s Legal Team and this has been followed. While Ms X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman