Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a report of footpath defect. It’s unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions if we were to investigate. And in any case, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the footpath outside his home was unsafe for pedestrians and was a hazard. He also said he could not safely access his driveway, and this had caused damage to his motor vehicle. Mr X said because of this he cannot use his driveway.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he reported a concern about the angle of the gradient of the footpath outside his home. He said this mean the footpath was unsafe and it also meant he had damaged the underside of his motor vehicle while crossing over to his driveway.
6. The Council told Mr X it had investigated his report and carried out some work on the footpath to make good. Mr X complained this had not resolved his concerns.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint saying it had discussed the issue with the relevant service area, who disagreed the footpath was dangerous. It also explained that Mr X could have modifications made to his vehicle cross over, at a cost to himself.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence shows the Council inspected the footpath, carried out some alterations, and decided it was safe. This is a professional decision it can take and in the absence of any flaw in how it decided, we would not criticise it, irrespective that Mr X disagrees with the decision.
9. Additionally, where a complainant alleges the Council is liable for causing any damage, we would refer them to the Council’s insurers to make a claim for damages as we cannot decide liability or make an award against a damage claim.
10. Mr X has asked as an outcome, for the Council to carry out work to reduce the gradient of the footpath. We could not direct the Council to do such an action and therefore cannot achieve what he is looking for.

Back to top

Final decision

11. It is unlikely an investigation will identify fault in how the Council made its decision the footpath was safe. And nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman