Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the closure of a footpath to a railway station. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains a builder has closed off a footpath from a car park to the railway station and the Council has not taken any action. Mr B says the new footpath is longer, uneven and goes through a construction site. Mr B says he uses a mobility aid and the new footpath is difficult to use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s response to his complaint. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and considered the comments he made and the photographs he provided in reply.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B considers a builder is responsible for the closure of the footpath he previously used and that he says provided direct access from a car park to the railway station. Mr B believes the builder is closing off access with the intention of taking control of the car park. Mr B says the new walkway presents problems for the elderly, mobility aid users, people with luggage and people with baby strollers.
5. In response to Mr B’s complaints, the Council has confirmed the footpath Mr B previously used was a temporary path while redevelopment work around the railway station was ongoing. The new path is as approved in the planning permission for the re-development. The Council says the new footpath is slightly longer, but is better landscaped and more level than the previous temporary route.
6. While Mr B is unhappy with the Council’s response, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has explained to Mr B why the footpath he previously used is no longer in use and has explained the new footpath forms part of an approved planning permission. There are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the way the Council has dealt with this matter, or say its decisions were made with fault. Mr B wants the previous footpath restored, but this is not an outcome the Ombudsman could achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman