The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right of way as Mr X is not caused sufficient injustice from his complaint to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has not taken action to unblock a public right of way in his town which Mr X used to use frequently.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
While Mr X has explained he used to use this route frequently, I do not consider that the fact that he cannot do so now causes him a level of injustice that would warrant our involvement. The right of way is in an urban area and there are alternative routes Mr X can use.
In addition, Mr X may have the right to apply for a magistrates’ court order to force the Council to remove the obstruction under the Highways Act 1980. We do not have similar powers and so it would seem reasonable to expect Mr X to resort to this action, if it is available to him.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice caused to him is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman