Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils temporary closure of a public right of way. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating, and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s closure of a bridge and ramp, a public right of way, which links the railway station to the beach.
2. Mr Y says this has caused his business financial loss due to reduced footfall and visitor numbers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained about the Council’s closure of a ramp and bridge from the train station to the beach to allow development works. Mr Y’s business is on the beach and the closure of the ramp and bridge has reduced footfall to the beach and his business has incurred financial losses due to this.
7. Mr Y says the Council did not consult on this matter. The Council is not required by law to provide a consultation period for temporary closures and diversions. Nevertheless, the Council has said it did not consult due to the closure being urgently for safety purposes.
8. The law says the Council should get a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) to temporarily close a public right of way if works are being carried out on or near the route. The Council must inform the public about the TTRO authorising the closure. The Council has said in its complaint response it has done this by advertising it in the local newspaper and publishing it on the Council’s website. As the Council had no statutory requirement to consult with the public about the closure, and it met the statutory requirements for informing the public about it, there is not enough evidence of fault on this to justify investigating.
9. Mr Y also complains about the prolonged closure and delay in providing temporary provision which increased financial losses to his business. The Council has now set up a temporary ramp. The Council said the delay in providing a temporary ramp was because the construction of a temporary ramp also has to follow certain processes. The Council said the temporary ramp will remain in place until a permanent one is constructed to replace the old one. It has said there will be updates on this on its website.
10. The Council has apologised to Mr Y in its complaint response for financial distress and disruption. It has said a compensation scheme has been set up through its insurers. It has passed Mr Y’s case to its insurers to consider for compensation. As a scheme is in place to provide a more suitable remedy, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use that. Mr Y can also claim for financial losses through the Courts if he feels the Council has been negligent.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman