Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to temporarily close a footpath because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants and there is insufficient evidence of Mr Y suffering significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to temporarily close a footpath. He says the Council has acted unlawfully.
2. Mr Y wants the Council to reopen the footpath.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council about its decision to close a footpath. The footpath has been closed for several years, and the Council explained that Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs) have been in place since the initial closure.
7. Mr Y says the Council has acted unlawfully by closing the footpath because it is a public right of way. The Council says that the footpath is a maintainable highway, and not a public right of way. The Council says the footpath is not closed indefinitely and the TTROs are currently in place because the footpath is unsafe. I understand Mr Y disagrees. But I am satisfied the Council has considered Mr Y’s concerns and explained why it does not consider the footpath a formal public right of way. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to make this decision.
8. Mr Y wants the Council to reopen the footpath, but the Council has explained why this is currently closed. We cannot achieve the outcome that Mr Y wants and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. I understand Mr Y is frustrated by the closure and says he regularly used the path. But even if I did agree there was fault in the process followed by the Council, I do not consider the injustice Mr Y has suffered because of the temporary closure is significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome that he wants and there is insufficient evidence of him suffering significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman