Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about restricted access on a public right of way. This is because it is late and there is not good reason to exercise direction to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained about restricted access on a public right of way footpath. He is upset that he is unable to access the footpath because he uses a mobility scooter.
2. Mr Y wants the footpath making accessible to all mobility scooter users.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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 Mr Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y complained to the Council about a public right of way footpath being inaccessible to him. The footpath is restricted because the Council installed an A-frame motorbike inhibitor and a bridleway with raised humps, which has been in place circa 2005. We expect a person to complain to us within 12 months of being aware of a matter, therefore, the complaint is late.
9. The more time passes between the events and a complaint, the more unlikely it is we can investigate them effectively, gather reliable evidence and reach a sound decision. In older cases we also may not be able to achieve a meaningful remedy because too many circumstances have changed. We are often unable to be able to show why events occurred or understand who was responsible.
10. Even if the complaint was not late, we would be unlikely to investigate. This is because the Council explained its reasons to Mr Y why the footpath is restricted. It said restricted access is necessary to limit antisocial behaviour and to protect ecology and conversation sensitives along the footpath.
11. Mr Y said the Council breached the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments. In its response the Council said it does not have a legal duty to make all public rights of ways accessible to all users.
12. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
13. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
14. The Council acknowledged Mr Y’s concerns and said it will consider these as part of its future review and improvement programme. It has explained why it is necessary for the restricted access to be in place on the footpath. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would likely not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman