Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s temporary closure of local footpaths. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice that would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about the closure of two local footpaths for repair works. He is unhappy that the closures remain in place and that the Council has neither carried out nor scheduled the necessary repairs.
2. Mr X says that, as a lifelong resident of the local area, the ongoing closures deny him access to the footpaths.
3. Mr X wants the Council to complete the necessary repair works and reopen the footpaths.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council legally closed two footpaths, which are public rights of way, by making a temporary Traffic Regulation Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(as amended). It took this action because of erosion.
8. Mr X raised several other concerns, including the reasons for the closures, the lack of signage indicating that the paths are closed, when the closures will end, and why public footpath signs remain in place despite the closures.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council provided Mr X a reasonable explanation for the closures. It said it closed the second footpath, so pedestrians were not directed to a route which remained closed. It would seek statutory approval from the Secretary of State for Transport to extend the current closure while it explores repair options.
10. It also addressed his further complaints its response and said it would monitor the signage and replace them when necessary and clearly explained why the public footpath signs remained in place. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.
11. In addition, 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.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and the matters complained about have not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice that would justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman