Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in allowing a Public Rights of Way Footpath to be used as a Permissive Bridleway. We will not investigate the complaint because the injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has allowed a Public Rights of Way Footpath (PRWF) to be used as a Permissive Bridleway so denying him and other walkers the use of the footpath which is unusable and unsafe to walk on. He says members of the public are being forced to share a very narrow PRWF with horses and are being put at danger.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. A path close to Mr X’s home along which he likes to walk is recorded on the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement as a PRWF.
5. In 2015 the Parish Council and the owner of the land agreed to open up the path to horse riders as a permissive right of way.
6. Mr X wrote to the Council in 2019 to complain about the Council’s actions in allowing the PRWF to be damaged by horses “restricting and denying access for the public to walk along it”.
7. The Council responded and stated that the decisions taken by its Countryside Officer had been correct and that the use of the section of the path by horses was fully supported by the landowner, the Parish Council and other local users. It said that research it had carried out suggested there may be a case for considering the path may have a higher level of public rights of way over it than currently recorded in the Definitive Map and Statement and that these were potentially equestrian and vehicular rights of way. It explained that due to existing workloads it was not in a position to further research the matter but that it would be in error in denying access to horse-riders if additional historic rights exist.
8. At Stage 2 of its complaints procedure, the Council repeated what it had told Mr X and that it would not prohibit horse-riders from using the path while it believed they may have an existing lawful right to do so unless it considered such use was causing difficulties for other lawful users.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

10. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and, as a publicly funded body, we must use the funds allocated to us in an efficient, effective and economic manner.
11. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint we consider not only the claimed fault but also the nature of the injustice caused to the person complaining. In this case, it appears that Mr X’s injustice is limited. He is not, as he has claimed, being denied access to the path as he is able to use it if he wishes. The complaint is Mr X’s and he does not act on behalf of other walkers who use the path.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says the Council should be made to prove the higher level of public rights of way it suggests may exist, that by allowing the path to be used by horse riders, it can never ensure he has safe passage along the path and that it is in breach of section 122 of the Road Traffic Act 1984. He says during the winter of 2017/18 the PRWF was seriously damaged by horses and he was denied access to it then and that access can be denied to him again in the future. However, it is too late for us to consider events from 2017/18 now and if a similar problem arises in the future the Council, as it noted in its Stage 2 response, can consider whether any difficulties caused require it to take action.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman