Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out repairs to a public footpath. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X wishes to challenge the Council’s decision it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to repair a defect in the footpath outside his property. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaints and its refusal to entertain further complaints about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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. The Council has investigated the defect reported by Mr X but does not consider it meets the threshold for repair. This is a decision the Council is entitled to reach and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
6. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but this in itself is not evidence of fault. If Mr X wishes to challenge the decision he may do so by taking the matter to court.
7. The Highways Act 1980 sets out the Council’s duties regarding highway maintenance at Section 41 and provides a mechanism to deal with disputes over inaction by a local authority at Section 56. This allows Mr X to serve notice on the Council and, if it still refuses to take action, he may ask the court to consider the issue. The court can decide whether the Council has fulfilled its obligations and, if it decides it has not, it can order the Council to carry out repairs.
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s refusal to consider further complaints about this matter as it has responded in detail and referred Mr X to us. The Council has referred Mr X’s conduct to its Monitoring Officer to consider whether it amounts to unreasonable behaviour but it has not yet reached any decision on whether to formally restrict his communications.
9. It is in any event not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X wishes to pursue the matter it would be reasonable for him to serve notice on the Council and take the matter to court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman