Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s temporary closure of a path and the traffic order process it used. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council allowing a developer to obstruct a path which he uses for a long period of time without a diversion which is suitable for him. he says the developer and the Council did not follow the traffic order requirements correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

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. Mr X says the Council allowed a developer in 2021 to close a path which he uses to enable development to take place. He says the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order for the closure ended in October 2021 and was not extended until November when he raised it with the Council. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint which he was aware of more than 12 months before he complained to us. The lapse in the order for 1 month was due to an error by the developer and the required extension was applied in the following month.
7. Mr X says he believes there is no current TTRO applied to the site but the path is still obstructed by the developer. The Council told us that there is an order in force until August 2023 and that the path is not a public right of way or adopted highway. The Order applies to the path which has permissive status because the development required action to safeguard users from the works in progress.
8. The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for making traffic orders where a diversion is required for users. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s use of the procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s temporary closure of a path and the traffic order process it used. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman