Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an obstruction placed on a road in his locale. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has allowed a business to block land which is unadopted highway and over which the public should have access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about unadopted land over which the public has a right of access being blocked off by a barrier erected by a business.
8. The Council investigated and took enforcement action for the removal of the obstruction. The enforcement notice it issued required the entire removal of the obstruction. However, while this was not done, it satisfied itself that what remained had a negligible impact on passage over the highway and it decided it would not take any further enforcement action.
9. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with this decision and wants the obstruction removed in its entirety, it is for the Council to decide its enforcement priorities and whether further action is reasonable and proportionate. It is not our role to question a council’s decision if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. In this case the Council decided not to take further enforcement action and this is a decision it is entitled to make.
10. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about this matter and says it lied and changed its position to uphold his complaint. However, generally we will not investigate matters related to complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue and there are insufficient grounds to do so here.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman