Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a footpath. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council is failing to enforce a pedestrian only section of a footpath in their area. They are also unhappy with the Council’s complaint response as it was made by an officer in charge of encouraging cycling in the area which they feel is biased.
2. They say cyclists regularly use the path at high speeds and this has led to accidents, causing them worry when using the path. They are concerned for the safety of pedestrians using the path.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr and Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr and Mrs Y initially contacted the Council about cyclists on the footpath in November 2019. They say the problem became worse during the pandemic and at the end of 2020, they became aware of our service.
7. Mr and Mrs Y contacted us in October 2021, and we asked them to complain to the Council in the first instance. Mr and Mrs Y then made a complaint to the Council in November 2021. They asked the Council to ban cyclists from using the path.
8. The Council responded in December 2021, saying it did not consider it necessary to ban cycling as the path remained safe generally but agreeing it would continue to encourage considerate use of the footpath by cyclists across the area. Mr and Mrs Y asked the Council to respond further as they were unhappy with the response received, partly as the Council’s officer responsible for encouraging cycling had responded, which they felt was biased.
9. The Council responded further in January 2022. They explained the local police force would be responsible for enforcing any dangerous cycling along the path. It said it would continue to encourage safe and considerate cycling but said it could not act further. It referred Mr and Mrs Y back to us.

Analysis

10. The Council has explained in its response to the complaint, that any enforcement action for cycling along the footpath would be for the local police force to consider and if appropriate to carry out. While it can encourage considerate cycling across the area, as it is not the Council’s role to enforce safe cycling, it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault for failing to do so. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Mr and Mrs Y may wish to contact their local police force about the issue.
12. As explained in paragraph four, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. As we are not investigating the substantive complaint, we will not investigate Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman