Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about obstruction of a right of way. There is insufficient evidence of personal injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to pursue his complaint about persons denying access to a footpath whilst they undertook tree maintenance work. He says the Council could have used its powers to identify and prosecute the persons responsible.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he was stopped by workers who were lopping trees next to a public right of way in the countryside near his home. He was advised the route was closed during the works and they tried to prevent him passing through whilst they were using machinery. He says he was able to pass the works but there was no temporary closure in place, so the obstruction was unauthorised.
6. He complained to the Council and said it should seek to prosecute the individuals. The Council visited the site but was unable to identify who had been involved in the incident despite making enquiries, including with the Land Registry. It told him it could not justify further public expense in pursuing the matter because it was a one-off incident and would not be able to take the matter to legal enforcement.
7. Council highway authorities have powers to obtain orders to remove obstructions to the highway. These powers must be used reasonably and there must be an obstruction in place for an authority to seek its removal. In this case obstruction was not of sufficient duration or the incident of sufficient significance of the Council to consider further action.
8. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes his powers gives us discretion as to whether a complaint should be pursued and, in reaching that decision, a preliminary assessment is made. We have to take account of the degree of injustice sustained and whether there is any realistic chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome. In this case there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about obstruction of a right of way. There is insufficient evidence of personal injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman