The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to hard surface sections of a path in her area. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to warrant an investigation. The matters raised do not cause a significant personal injustice to Ms X which justifies our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X lives near an open space with a path around it. Some of the path is hard surfaced with tarmac and some is earth. She complains the Council has failed to properly maintain the path.
Ms X says the path is impassable for many in wet weather and cannot be used by those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs. She says the path is uneven and muddy which makes it dangerous for walkers, and that she has fallen on the path more than once, as have others. Ms X wants the earth path sections to be replaced with tarmac, to return the entire path to how it was originally installed.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In reaching its decision not to re-lay hard surfacing on the earth sections of the path, the Council has considered Ms X’s concerns in the context of all the other works it needs to do using its landscaping and repairs budget. Officers took the view that the work she wants them to do was not of sufficient priority for them to fund it. It is not fault for a council to make decisions on where to focus and spend its budget, using officers’ professional judgement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process here to warrant us investigating.
We can only criticise a council’s decision if there is clear evidence of fault in the way it has been made which, but for that fault, would have led to a different decision. I realise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s position. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision-making process here, we will still not investigate, because the matters cause insufficient personal injustice to Ms X. If Ms X decides to continue to use the path, she may walk off it to avoid muddy, wet or uneven sections. There is not a significant personal injustice to her which justify us investigating. I recognise Ms X raises accessibility issues for wheelchair users or those with prams. But those issues relate to others’ use of the path, not hers. Any problems those residents might experience with the path are not Ms X’s injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and even if there has been such fault, the matters raised in the complaint do not cause Ms X such a significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman