Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about closure of a public footpath. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to divert the footpath, any administrative errors have not caused a significant injustice, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to maintain a public footpath and has instead diverted the route to run alongside a busy road. He says this is denying the public access to an established countryside walk. He wants the Council to address the hazards on the footpath and reinstate access to the path as drawn on the Definitive Map.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating,

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. In its complaint responses, the Council set out its position with regard to the footpath. It said that due to the nature of the obstructions, the route could not be reasonably maintained. It said its view was that an alternative route was in the best interests of the public.
7. We will not investigate this. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with this position, the Council has appropriately considered the matter and set out the reasons for its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, so we will not question the outcome.
8. The Council accepted it had made administrative errors during the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) process and did not renew the TTRO for the footpath before it expired. We will not investigate this as I do not consider this has caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council’s position is that the footpath should remain closed. It has started the consultation process to permanently divert the path. Had the fault not occurred and the Council had renewed the TTRO, the path would still have remained closed. The Council has acted to improve its procedures by developing a more robust method to track TTROs to ensure it applied for extensions at the appropriate time. Any injustice caused by the administrative error is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, any injustice caused by the delay extending the TTRO has not caused a significant injustice, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman