Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council agreeing to temporary right of way closures during a sporting event. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would find significant fault with the Council or provide the complainant with a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr A, has complained about the Council agreeing right of way closures for a sporting event in his local area. Mr A feels the closures were disproportionate and the landowner failed to comply with the restrictions of the order.

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 an investigation if we decide:

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

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr A and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
5. Mr A commented on a draft decision and I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council is entitled to put temporary restrictions in place on public rights of way under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Council has said it received a request from an event organiser and this was assessed in line with its usual process. Due to the nature of the request, the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport for approval before the closures were granted.
7. Mr A has suggested there were inaccuracies in the application the Council provided to the Secretary of State. Whilst this may have been the case, the Secretary of State would have fully reviewed the application before coming to a decision. This being the case, it is unlikely any error would have resulted in a different outcome.
8. Whilst it must have been very frustrating for Mr A when the rights of way were closed, the Council appears to have followed the right process to make its decision to grant the closures. I think it is unlikely further investigation would find fault with the way the Council considered the application.
9. Mr A has also raised concerns with the information the event organiser published. I could not hold the Council responsible for the actions of the event organiser or the information they provided, but the Council has agreed to contact them to offer advice going forward. My view is further investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome to this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I have decided we should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the event organiser’s request and it is unlikely further investigation would result in a different outcome for Mr A.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman