Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with the proposals for a shared cycle and footway near his home, its response to his requests for information and its complaint replies. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mr X or his family by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. The Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO) would be the body better placed to consider the Council’s response to Mr X’s information requests. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on road Y, which connects to road Z leading to and from a nearby town. The Council received a planning application for a residential development off road Z. The plans included the installation of a two-way shared pedestrian and cyclist path along road Z. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has ignored the dangers of the shared footway and cycle path which is not wide enough;
2. failed to consult disability groups about the path’s safety;
3. has failed to give him plans for another shared path in the area which is of a similar width;
4. used erroneous information in its responses to his complaint.
2. Mr X says his blind son had mobility advice to avoid the route because of pavement parking. He is worried by the dangers that the proposed shared route will introduce for him, his family and neighbours and others who have no reasonable alternative walking route. Mr X says he is frustrated by the failure of the Council to provide details of the evidence it has used to justify its plans for the route, and by the complaints officer relying on incorrect information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The shared footway and cycle path formed part of a residential planning application for road Z. The developer received the permission after the involvement of the Planning Inspectorate. Mr X considers the proposed shared path is not wide enough and will be dangerous. He feels the Council has ignored those dangers, particularly to those who are visually impaired, a group which includes his son. He considers the Council should have consulted with relevant disability groups regarding the shared pathway. The Council says the process will consider the viability and safety of the shared route, the core concerns Mr X has raised, before it is installed. It says its officers will have an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with the developer, which allows the builder to do or commission works to the Council’s highway, as part of the normal process for such projects. The Council says this process will involve consideration of the suitability and safety of the proposed shared pathway for all its users.
7. Even if there has been Council fault in the ways Mr X states, we will not investigate. We recognise Mr X is worried about the safety of the shared path for him, his family including his visually impaired son, and other users. But the route is not in place. The Planning Inspectorate determined the shared path, with its proposed width and several pinch points, was acceptable in planning terms and in principle. We cannot say the proposed and planned design for the path will put Mr X or anyone else at risk. That would be speculation. Even once the path is completed, we cannot take into account as injustices events or incidents relating to it which have not happened. We understand Mr X is worried about the path’s final design. But that worry in itself does not amount to a significant injustice warranting an investigation. Any claimed injustices to other future users of the shared path are not and would not be a personal injustice for Mr X. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X or his family caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.
8. We note Mr X says he asked the Council three times to give him copies of plans of another shared route in its area which it said was of a similar width and design, but he has not received them. If Mr X still wants access to those documents, he may make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Council. The Council may provide him with the documents he wants, or if they are publicly available, could give him information to allow him to find them himself. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s FOI reply, he can take that issue to the Information Commissioner (ICO). Should he disagree with the ICO’s decision, he would then have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). It would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue this part of his complaint through an FOI request, then to the ICO if required. The ICO is the body created by national government to consider access to information and data matters and apply the relevant laws and regulations, so is the body best placed to consider this issue.
9. Mr X has been dissatisfied by the Council’s complaint responses and says officers used incorrect information. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him or his family by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• the ICO would be the body better placed to consider the complaint about the Council’s provision of information; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman