Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s obstruction of a footpath and its failure to create a safe crossing point to the footpath. We will not investigate the complaint because Mr X has appeal rights to the Magistrates Court which we would reasonably expect him to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has not had regard to its duty to assert and protect a public right of way (PROW) in his locale while it has been carrying out highway improvements on an A road close to it. He says the Council has not maintained the PROW and has created an obstruction to it by building new crash barriers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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. Mr X complained to the Council about road improvements to an A road by a motorway junction which he said were causing an obstruction to a PROW in his locale.
5. The Council told Mr X the path had been moved to near the motorway junction when the motorway had been constructed many years ago and ever since then it had been left in an awkward position. It said the roadworks underway will accommodate traffic from two new large developments and that further routes and safety crossings in the area will be provided in due course. It did not agree the safety barriers under construction were an obstruction to the footpath because they duplicated what had been there before and because the footpath ended at the motorway junction. It said ever since the motorway had been built there has been no onwards provision from that point and that pedestrians who do not turn back and cross over the crash barriers do so at their own risk.
6. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 of this statement applies to Mr X’s complaint. If he believes the Council is obstructing the PROW, he can serve a notice on it requiring it to clear the obstruction and if it fails to do so he can apply to the Magistrates Court for an order under the Highways Act 1980.
8. As Mr X has this alternative remedy available to him and given the different views on the obstruction held by Mr X and the Council, we would reasonably expect him to make use of this right and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to the Magistrates Court which we would reasonably expect him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman