Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of vegetation next to a cycle path. The personal injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a cyclist. He complains the Council has:
1. failed to clear part of a local cycle path of overgrown vegetation;
2. told him they would clear the path within about five days but did not do so;
3. unnecessarily instructed cyclists to share part of the route with pedestrians;
4. failed to make itself aware of the problem with the path.
2. Mr X says he was unable to use the cycle path after grazing his legs on the vegetation, and was disappointed the Council did not meet its date to cut it back. He considers there is a danger to the public from cyclists and pedestrians sharing part of the route. He wants the Council to maintain the cycle path.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X grazing his legs on overgrown vegetation on the cycle path would have been unpleasant. It would also have been frustrating for Mr X for the Council to advise it would clear the vegetation within about five days but not meet its deadline. But these issues do not cause a significant enough personal injustice to Mr X to justify the use of public money to investigate this complaint.
6. Mr X says the Council not removing the vegetation from the cycle path means cyclists share part of the route with pedestrians, which is dangerous for the route’s users. Marked cycle paths, particularly where they have been created from what was previously a route only for pedestrians, are shared paths for both users, with pedestrians retaining priority. In any event, Mr X reports no personal involvement in accidents with pedestrians at the location, and would be able to take an alternative route to avoid it. Any incidents involving other route users would not be Mr X’s injustice. This issue has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which would warrant us investigating.
7. Mr X says the Council failed to make itself aware of the problem with the path. The Council did work to the area in response to Mr X’s reports about it. Councils cannot be aware of all problems on their highway network. It would not be fault for a council to be advised to some extent of highway issues by members of the public.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the personal injustice is not serious enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman