Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to tackle problems with the behaviour of cyclists using a trail near to his home. He is concerned there could be an accident. There was fault in the Council’s failure to update Mr B about what was happening for which the Council should apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has failed to tackle problems with the behaviour of cyclists using a trail near to his home. Mr B uses the trail daily on his mobility scooter and is concerned that the behaviour could lead to an accident to him or other users of the trail. He further complains the Council has not contacted him as promised about involvement in a group of interested parties to formulate a code of conduct for users.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of what happened

5. The trail runs from near Mr B’s home and he uses it daily to walk his dog. He is concerned about the behaviour of cyclists using the path, he says they go too fast and are rude which he finds intimidating and threatening.
6. He approached the Council about his concerns early 2019. The Council responded saying that it had no powers to enforce a speed limit on users of the trail as it was not highway. It said that it was considering signage.
7. Officers met in March. The outcome was to involve local interested parties with a view to creating a code of conduct for users of the trail.
8. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process in April. It apologised that the stage one response had not been clear about the policy that was already in place for users of this type of trail. It confirmed there were no enforcement powers. It also apologised that they had not been clear about the timing for the implementation of the new signage. It said that he would be required to provide any ideas he had by the summer with a view to implementing the signage in the autumn. It said that it was budget dependent.
9. The Council established a working group of interested parties which met at the end of August. This did not involve members of the public.
10. As Mr B had not heard anything he complained to us in early September.
11. In early 2020 the Council commented that it had been planned for the next meeting of the working group to consider representations from members of the public, including Mr B. It had been intended to be held in autumn 2019 but a date could not be found that suited all the relevant parties. So it was then planned to arrange if for early spring.
12. In a further update form the Council in June it said that the planned spring meeting did not happen because of bad weather events. The situation had then changed because the use of the path had increased since lockdown and the interaction between users was even more complex. The Council hoped to revisit the issues in August 2020 and would update Mr B.

Analysis

13. There are no particular statutory powers or duties on which the Council can rely to control the behaviour of the users of the footpath. It is for the Council to decide whether more signage is appropriate. In April 2019 it told Mr B it would involve him in its consideration of what further action it could take. It said it would need his input over the summer with a view to implementation in the autumn. That time-frame slipped but the Council did not tell Mr B. I am not aware that Mr B chased the Council for an update but, even so, I consider the Council should have told him what was happening given the earlier contact.
14. The situation has now moved on and the Council will have to consider things as they now stand. It will be for the Council to decide how it should proceed given the changed circumstances.

Agreed action

15. The Council will, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr B for failing to update him.

Back to top

Final decision

16. There was fault in the Council’s failure to update Mr B about what was happening.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman