Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing local rights of way and not promoting an alternative route. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from us investigating. Even if there were fault in the Council’s decision-making processes, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice which would warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives about four miles from the start of footpaths across countryside to the south of his home. He complains the Council has:
1. closed footpaths for many months;
2. failed to advise him of an alternative route.
2. Mr X states he has no option but to break the law and use the closed paths to go where he wants to go. He says this imperils him because he is unable to properly assess the dangers. Mr X wants the Council to provide a safe route and tell him what it is.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant maps and legislation, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council closed the footpath rights of way due to the condition of the land through which they pass after surveys by the National Park Authority. Officers made the order in 2020 under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended) (‘the 1984 Act’). The order has subsequently been extended until 2025 through an application to the Secretary of State.
7. To find the Council at fault for closing and continuing to seek to prevent use of the rights of way, we would have to go behind that decision of the Secretary of State. The decision to confirm the original order and continue the right of way closures was made by a higher authority than the Ombudsman, a national government minister. We cannot criticise or alter the minister’s decision, nor do we have any jurisdiction to investigate it. These limitations on our powers and jurisdiction mean an investigation of this issue would achieve no worthwhile outcome for Mr X so we will not investigate it.
8. Mr X also complains about the Council’s decision not to recommend an alternative route to the closed rights of way. Section 14(3) of the 1984 Act requires highways authorities considering closing rights of way to ‘have regard to the existence of alternative routes suitable for the traffic which will be affected by the order or notice’ closing the right of way. The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations of 1992 also requires authorities to sign the alternative route at each end of the closed right of way ‘where applicable’. The Council has had due regard for the alternative routes. It has decided not to promote one through signage or other means because the alternative routes require pedestrians to follow narrow roads which allow fast traffic speeds and which do not have footways. Officers considered the relevant information about those routes to reach their decision not to promote them, so it would not be appropriate for the Council to sign them. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. In any event, even if there was fault in the Council’s processes here, we would not investigate because of insufficient significant personal injustice. In respect of the closure decision, Mr X lives about four miles from the location of the closed rights of way. We recognise Mr X is caused some outrage annoyance, and inconvenience by the ongoing route closures whenever he decides to walk in that area. But he is able to choose alternative places to walk. The routes’ closure does not impede him in any essential activities. It is Mr X’s decision to continue to seek access to the area where the closed routes expect him to divert his walk which results in that disruption. The previous and ongoing closure of the routes do not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.
10. If there was fault in the Council’s decision not to recommend and promote an alternative route, this would also not give sufficient injustice grounds for us to investigate. There are alternative routes Mr X may use to reach any destination beyond the end of the closed footpaths. The Council’s decision not to promote one does not render them unusable or unavailable or force anyone to not use them. This part of the complaint also does not cause Mr X such significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.
11. Mr X indicates he may have been using the rights of way despite the closure orders. If Mr X decides to do so, that is his choice. Any future impact on him from his decision to use the closed routes would stem from his own actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation; and
• even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice which would justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman