East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 004 787)

Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Jul 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain a public footpath. This is because Mr X has an alternative remedy available to him against the Council through the Magistrates’ Court which we would reasonably expect him to use.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to maintain a public footpath close to his home and its delay in dealing with a Subject Access Request in relation to the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. 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)
  3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Over a number of years Mr X has complained to the Council about its lack of maintenance of a footpath close to his home.
  2. In previous complaints to the Ombudsman, we have told him we will not investigate the matter because of the availability of an alternative remedy via the Magistrates’ Court. This restriction is highlighted at paragraph 3 above and our position has not changed.
  3. Mr X says he received a late response to his SAR request to the Council contrary to the data protection laws. If he wishes to pursue this matter, the Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to deal with it.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has an alternative remedy available to him against the Council through the Magistrates’ Court which we would reasonably expect him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings