Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the use of a public byway. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not respond properly to his complaint about the use of a restricted byway. He said a farm used it as a road and there had been no change to its status.
2. He said a vehicle could seriously injure or kill a member of the public. He wants the Council to take proceedings to stop the use of the restricted highway.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that a farm used a public byway as a road which could cause danger to the public. During my enquiries the Council confirmed the farm owner owned the land including the public byway. It said road closures prevented the usual access to the farm.
7. It confirmed an Officer had discussed access, volume of traffic and expected timescales with the landowner. The Council said it was assured it was a temporary measure due to the farm’s usual access route being unavailable. The Council said it decided the use of vehicles was low and when the usual route became accessible again, its use would subside.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns by assessing how the farm owner used the public byway. It said the landowner decided to use the public byway only as a temporary measure. It took the correct steps when it determined the use of vehicles was low and temporary, and it would take no further action. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman