Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not repairing a damaged footbridge or stopping the public from using it, and how it responded to his correspondence and complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process nor sufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where a small bridge which takes a footpath over a watercourse. He reported to the Council that the bridge was in disrepair. Mr X complains the Council has failed to:
1. repair the footbridge;
2. stop the public using the bridge;
3. respond to his chaser emails seeking action and an update;
4. properly investigate his complaint before closing it.
2. Mr X says the bridge is a danger to walkers, wheelchair users and pets.

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 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)
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 continue 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; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s report about the bridge’s condition, the Council visited it just over two weeks later to investigate and assess the risk. The Council’s officers determined the bridge was failing. They reported this defect to other officers. Officers received further information showing some of the bridge’s planks had been removed so reassessed it and placed it on their works programme.
8. Officers gathered relevant information about the bridge’s location and condition when making the Council’s decision to schedule repair works. They reassessed after receiving information that the bridge’s condition had worsened. It was then for officers to use their professional judgement to determine what priority to give to the works, taking into account the assessment of risk, the bridge’s location and importance to the highway network, and prioritising the works within the context of all other repairs on the Council’s list. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council applied its decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision and investigating. We recognise Mr X may disagree with the Council on what level of priority to give the works and keeping the bridge open. But it was for officers to decide what action to take and the priority to give the repairs. It is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there has been Council fault by keeping the bridge open and not yet repairing it, we will not investigate. Where we identify fault, our remit then requires us to consider whether it has caused significant personal injustice to the complainant. Mr X has not been involved in any accidents at the bridge. He reported to the Council that he knows a person who was injured there. But any incidents not involving Mr X would not be his injustice. We recognise Mr X may have to avoid the bridge when walking in the area or be cautious when using it. But neither this nor any other claimed injustice amounts to sufficient significant personal injustice to him stemming from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council has advised Mr X that if it cannot repair the bridge, staff will do work to make it safe before the bridge can be replaced. If we investigated, the Council putting this bridge repair or replacement work on its schedule is the kind of outcome we would have sought. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome to that already reached here.
11. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint-handling, including it not responding to email chasers and how it dealt with his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes regarding the bridge to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman