The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a public right of way diversion order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s presentation of a footpath diversion due to the current route being obstructed. He says his own comments on the matter were not presented to the committee meeting whilst his neighbour, who also owns affected land, was able to speak and named him as being party to a dispute about the route which discredited his character. Mr X believes the neighbour should have been challenged and that both sides’ views should have been presented to the meeting.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council failed to present a case about an obstructed footpath and a proposed diversion order to a committee meeting fairly. He says his own submissions to a councillor were not presented and his neighbour who did attend was allowed to speak and misrepresented the situation which Mr X feels was discrediting to his character. He wants the Council to issue a formal correction of what was said at the meeting.
We have previously investigated the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s dispute over the footpath status with his neighbour in complaint reference 23001094 and we will not reconsider any of the points covered in that investigation.
The meeting was held to establish the Council’s way forward on the footpath matter in its role as highway authority. The matter was presented for councillors to decide whether a public path diversion order should be pursued. There was no requirement for Mr X or his neighbour to present their cases for or against the proposal. The Council decided to make an order and any submissions from affected parties will be considered as part of the order making procedure.
If there are any formal objections received to the order then the matter would have to be decided by a Planning Inspector at a public inquiry. At this point Mr X would again have an opportunity to present his case as a witness or objector.
Mr X’s neighbour did not speak on behalf of the Council and any information which could have been presented on Mr X’s behalf by a councillor again would not be the view of the Council itself. If Mr X believes his neighbour has in some way slandered him and affected his good character he could seek legal advice as such matters can only be determined by the courts and are outside our jurisdiction.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a public right of way diversion order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman