Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a footpath. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council has not repaired or replaced a footpath outside of her house despite her requests. She says the footpath is becoming dangerous and is unhappy as paths outside her neighbour’s properties have been replaced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y first contacted the Council about the footpath, asking for it to be repaired, in February 2000. She says she has contacted the Council several times about the path and recently others living on her road have had the footpaths leading to their properties repaired or replaced.
6. Mrs Y complained again to the Council in November 2021. As part of her complaint, she said she had asked the Council to repair the path several times and that it had repeatedly been risk assessed, but the Council had not acted.
7. The Council responded, explaining that it had considered the path outside Mrs Y’s property and decided it was a low priority for repair. It said it did not intend to act at that time but would continue to keep the footpath in its regular safety inspection lists. It referred Mrs Y to us if she remained unhappy.

Analysis

8. Ms Y’s was aware of her reason to complain when she began to complain to the Council about the path in 2000 and the Council decided not to act further. This is substantially more than 12 months ago. Consequently, her complaint is now late.
9. We have discretion to disapply the rule outlined in paragraph two where we decide there are good reasons. Ms Y has not provided any good reasons why she did not bring her complaint to us within 12 months of knowing about the matter. It is reasonable to expect her to have complained sooner.
10. Further, the Council has risk assessed the footpath and in its professional opinion found it is not a high priority for repair or replacement. As the Council has properly considered the issue and explained to Mrs Y its reasons for not acting at this time, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.
11. For both reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because it is late with no good reason to investigate it now and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman