Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with repairs to a public right of way. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed completing repairs on a public right of way (PROW) situated on his land. He said that resulted in him being threatened by people trying to access the PROW.
2. He said the Council had since repaired the PROW but in doing so had damaged his plants and shrubs. He said the Council had not responded to his complaint about this.
3. Mr X also complained about a second PROW. He said that PROW included a bridge, whose foundations were sited in on an unsafe culvert. He said that is placing people accessing the PROW at risk.
4. Mr X wants the Council to repair the culvert, make the PROW safe, and pay him for the convenience of work completed and damage caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed in completing repairs to the PROW. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about the closed PROW in late 2024. That response explained its Council Engineers needed to get additional advice about the collapsed culvert. It scheduled the repair works for the following month. As the Council has now repaired the culvert, there is no outstanding significant injustice, therefore, nothing worthwhile to be achieved by investigating this matter.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that repairs to a PROW completed by the Council has damaged plants and shrubs. If Mr X believes the Council’s actions have caused damage to his property, that would be a matter for the Council’s insurance, and if his claim is rejected for the courts. We cannot say whether the Council was responsible for any damage, or the value of said damage.
10. We will also not investigate his complaint about the PROW that crossed the bridge and the safety of the foundations of that bridge. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed it was not responsible for either the bridge or the culvert; both are privately owned. It said its role was to ensure the PROW remained accessible. It said it undertook annual visits and was satisfied the bridge was safe for pedestrian access. It said any other concerns about the design of the bridge, and how it was being used was a civil mater. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint about the PROW to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman