The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over plant sales occasionally taking place on a public bridleway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action to remove plants which are occasionally sold on at plant sales the edges of a public bridleway. He says the events could impede the passage of horseriders and that the grass surface may be damaged. He wants the Council to use its highway powers to prevent the events or to remove the plants itself from the bridleway.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he has cut the grass on part of a public bridleway for 30 years. Recently plant sales have been held on the bridleway on occasional days in the summer for a local charity. He says the plants take up part of the bridleway and the obstruction could cause alarm to passing horses. He says that after the events plants are sometimes left behind and this causes the grass beneath them to die back.
He asked the Council to use its powers under the Highways Act 1980 to prevent the sales taking place and to remove the plants left behind if they did. The Council investigated his complaint and told him that it does not consider the events to have sufficient frequency or scale to warrant any prosecution under the Highways Act.
The plant sales are limited in time and frequency and the Council would have to serve legal notices on anyone depositing them on the highway before it could seek a criminal prosecution in the Magistrates Court. The Council told Mr X that it would be unreasonable to use its powers where there was insufficient public interest and that it had not received any complaints about obstruction from horseriders. It said it would contact the event organisers and monitor the situation but did not believe it should take formal action in this case.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over plant sales occasionally taking place on a public bridleway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman