Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take immediate action on the complainant’s reports of a new electric fence along a public right of way. The fence has been removed. Also, the Council has explained the law on the complaint and apologised for the delay in its response. We consider there is no worthwhile outcome from an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to take immediate action when the public was at risk and ignored her emails. She says it failed to respond in time and its initial response was inadequate.
2. Miss X wants the Council to explain:
• why it ignored her emails
• why the electric fence was allowed to remain in place without legal notices
• why it did not carry out a second site visit to check the legality of the fence; and
• explain the delay in its response

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X told the Council an electric fence had been installed next to a public right of way (PROW) without displaying the required signage. Sheep were grazing next to the PROW.
7. The Council failed to respond to Miss X’s report, or several emails she sent asking for a reply.
8. Mrs X complained to her local councillor and made a formal complaint.
9. The following month, the Council advised it had visited the PROW and taken measurements to ensure the electric fence was not on the PROW. It confirmed this was the case and had contacted the landowner about more signage. It also advised it was waiting for legal advice as to whether any laws had been broken.
10. Miss X escalated her complaint. She stated the Council had not understood the law and the PROW should be at least three metres wide by law and there should be warning signs on the electric fence every 50 metres.
11. The Council continued to advise it was waiting for legal advice.
12. Approximately five months after Miss X had reported the matter, the Council issued a final response. It confirmed:
• the fence was a temporary measure while livestock was grazing, and it had now been removed
• the required measurement for the PROW as determined in the Definitive Map and Statement is one and a half metres: Mrs X’s reference to a minimum of three metres applies only to paths where width is not recorded; and
• there is no legislation requiring the landowner to install signage and no requirement for the Council to enforce the display of signage.
13. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to Miss X’s concerns. It explained her emails had been missed due to staffing issues.
14. We expect councils to respond to complaints according to its published procedures. However, the Council has apologised for the delay and explained this is partly due to staffing issues and it was also waiting for legal advice. Also, the fence has been removed.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we do not consider further investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman