Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to concerns raised about the condition of public footpaths which the complainant uses. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council has failed to address his concerns about the condition of public rights of way where he lives. And it has not handled his complaint in a fair and unbiased manner.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has been in contact with the Council over the last two years about a failure to maintain public footpaths to the width specified in the relevant legislation. He is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his requests for action to be taken to reinstate and maintain public rights of way according to statutory requirements.
6. The Council confirms Officers have visited the site which is the subject of Mr X’s latest complaint and assessed the condition of the path. Officers are satisfied the path is walkable with the crop not causing a significant obstacle to walkers. It has also confirmed it has written to the landowner reminding them that the crop should be cleared to achieve a footpath 0.9 metres wide. It also arranged for the field edge to be cut.
7. I recognise that Mr X does not agree with the Council’s approach, and he considers the condition of path is unacceptable. However, the Council has responded to his concerns and taken the action it considers appropriate and proportionate, an approach it believes is in accordance with the legislation.
8. Mr X says the Council should act against the landowner. And that it has not upheld his rights. However, the Council has visited the site, ensured the path is passable, cut the field edge and written to the landowner. Under these circumstances we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.
9. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaints procedure. We will not investigate this point as 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

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider he has suffered sufficient personal injustice because the footpaths are not the statutory width. The Council has inspected the paths and is satisfied they are walkable. Also, it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone, for the reason stated above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman