Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to cut back vegetation on a shared pedestrian and cycle path. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process, or enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter, to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a regular cyclist on a shared cycle and pedestrian route. He complains the Council has failed to cut back vegetation growing over the route, reducing its width.
2. Mr X says the overgrown path is dangerous for pedestrians if they meet a cyclist at the narrowed part of the path. He wants the Council to remove the overgrown vegetation and erect a fence to stop it happening again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, viewed online maps, and considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the hedge next to the shared pedestrian and cycle path has grown over the side marked for pedestrian use. He is concerned pedestrians walking around the overgrown hedge on the cycle lane might meet an oncoming cyclist.
7. The Council says the cycle lane was created from what was previously a pedestrian footpath, so pedestrians retain the right to use all parts of the path. Officers say they inspect the route every month and they did not identify overgrown vegetation requiring work up to October 2021.
8. We can only go behind a council’s decision if there has been fault in the process they have used to make it which, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. The Council has continued to regularly inspect the area to reach its view that no work is required. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to allow us to go behind their decision. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s position. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision-making here, we will not investigate. This is because the matter does not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. Mr X reports no involvement in accidents or other significant problems on the route caused to him by the vegetation. Should he continue to have concerns about using the route, there is also a pedestrian and cycle route on the other side of the road he could use to reach his destination with little diversion.
10. I recognise Mr X may consider he is bringing his complaint on behalf of all cyclist and pedestrian users of the route. But he does not have standing to complain on behalf of others and for what might be those others’ alleged injustices. That would amount to a campaign, rather than a complaint. Mr X has raised the matter with his local MP, who does have the appropriate standing as an elected representative to pursue a campaign with the Council on any matters of concern to constituents.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• even if there were Council fault, there is not enough evidence of such a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman