Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about sand obstructing a section of coastal path. Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• refused to maintain a section of coast path which had become obstructed by sand;
• failed to provide an alternative path or take steps to reroute the public trail;
• delayed responding and did not properly consider his complaint.
2. Mr X said the issue particularly affected people with mobility issues, but had also caused him frustration. He wanted the Council to review its decision and either maintain or reroute the path. He also wanted it to make service improvements.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
7. Mr X’s frustration does not meet this threshold.
8. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mr X’s concerns. It explained works it could undertake within its funding limitations could be quickly undone by wind and weather conditions. It said safe, temporary access alternatives were available and should it consider it necessary it could apply to Natural England to realign sections of the trail route.
9. While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, this does not mean it is at fault. The Council properly considered the matter, and in the absence of fault we cannot question its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman