Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s failure to consult with her and other local residents about the introduction of a new footpath arrangement for cyclists and pedestrians close to her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there was no legal requirement for the Council to consult and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council failed to consult with local residents about the introduction of a new footpath arrangement for cyclists and pedestrians close to her property which led to the removal of grass and which she says impacts negatively on the appeal, and therefore value, of her property.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council undertook work on highway maintainable land close to Ms B’s property as part of improvement works for its scheme to create a cycling route to encourage cycling in the area. The work was carried out to accommodate cyclists and improve the sight line for pedestrians and cyclists at a crossing point.
6. Ms B complained to the Council about the lack of consultation with residents on the work, the loss of the grass area and the impact on the value of her property which she feels will lose “curb appeal”.
7. The Council responded by explaining the purpose of the works and the benefits for those using the crossing point.

Assessment

8. The nature of the work carried out by the Council did not require it to undertake public consultation and it did not do so. While I understand Ms B may be disappointed with what has been done, there was no obligation on the Council to consult or meet with residents and it is not responsible for any perceived loss of value to her property.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there was no legal requirement for the Council to consult and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman