The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a footpath. The Council has agreed put the matter to the relevant committee. That is a suitable remedy for the complaint.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council had not asked the relevant committee to decide a proposed modification of the definitive map of rights of way. This left Mr X uncertain about whether a footpath might become available. Mr X does not live in the path’s immediate vicinity, but it would be convenient for him to use the path between his home and local amenities. Mr X wanted his complaint to us to result in the Council setting a date for the committee to consider the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also viewed online maps and photographs of the relevant area.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because the matter has been ongoing for several years. The Council had been expected to put the matter to the committee at various points in the past, but that had not happened. The Council had also not decided the matter within the timescale the Secretary of State had specified. So, if we were to investigate, it is likely we would find undue delay by the Council.
It is also likely that, if an investigation found fault, we would also find Mr X had experienced avoidable protracted uncertainty about the outcome and whether he would be able to start using the path. I cannot say any delay has actually prevented people using the footpath sooner. We cannot know in advance what the committee might decide about whether to make the order Mr X wants. And even if the Council makes that order, that would not necessarily be the final word. An order might then go to the Planning Inspectorate and after that might be challenged in the High Court. We cannot speculate about what decisions those bodies might make. Nevertheless, protracted uncertainty about a matter Mr X understandably considers important in terms of local amenity would be an injustice.
Mr X also suggested carbon emissions were increasing locally because residents were using cars for local journeys because the shortcut the path would provide was not available. That is necessarily speculative. It also assumes that, but for any delay by the Council, the path would have been available already. As explained above, I cannot assume that.
We therefore asked to the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by agreeing to put the matter to the relevant committee for decision within three months, to resolve the complaint early.
Agreed action
To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint. It is arranging to put the matter to committee significantly earlier than the maximum timescale we suggested. We cannot reasonably achieve more than this.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman