Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close a footpath close to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Also, the footpath has now reopened, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council approved a planning application by Network Rail allowing the temporary closure of a footpath across a level crossing close to her home. She says the alternative route proposed by the Council is dangerous to pedestrians.
2. She says this meant while the path was closed, she could not leave her home on foot without using the alternative route which caused her anxiety and fear.
3. She wants the Council to change is processes to ensure it completes risk assessments on any alternative routes proposed during future road closures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X, including the Council’s responses to her concerns.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its responses to Mrs X’s complaints, the Council explained Network Rail required the temporary closure of the footpath. It was considered dangerous due to restricted sight lines of the railway caused by overgrown vegetation. The Council advised that because the footpath was considered dangerous, it could not refuse the application to temporarily close it. The alternative route suggested by the Council was to help people who do not know the area. The Council confirmed that it is not required to carry out a risk assessment before temporarily closing the footpath.
8. The footpath reopened before Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
9. 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.
10. The Council has provided Mrs X with a reasonable explanation for the decision to approve Network Rail’s application to temporarily close the footpath because of safety concerns. Based on the information I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Also, as the footpath is open, it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council’s actions, and it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman