The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to close a nearby footpath and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation. Even if there has been fault, the matters complained of cause insufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation, and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.
The complaint
Mrs X lives near a footpath which crosses a footbridge. She complains the Council has failed to: fix the footbridge quickly enough after it was damaged; set up a reasonable diversion for the footpath’s users; stop a farmer from illegally locking a gate giving access to the footpath and preventing or delaying repair works; deal with her complaint properly or take the matters seriously.
Mrs X says there is no alternative route which does not include busy and dangerous roads and allows dogs. She says her children cannot walk their dogs on their own, which upsets them, particularly her son. Mrs X says the bridge closure means they can no longer access the footpath beyond. She says an officer laughed and scoffed at her complaint during a telephone call.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there has been fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace council officers’ professional judgement with our or anyone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
In response to reports of damage to the bridge, the Council’s officers assessed its condition, determined it was unsafe for public use and closed it. As the body responsible for the safety of public footpath users, that was a decision the Council was entitled to make. Officers gathered the relevant information and made their assessment to reach this decision.
In reply to Mrs X’s complaint about the ongoing bridge disrepair and footpath closure, officers explained it has been unable to repair the bridge because of the wet weather. It advised that there was an alternative route requiring users to walk about 200 metres on a quiet street, with a footpath for most of that route. The Council does not mention whether the alternative access is open for dog walkers. This does not appear to be a point Mrs X raised in her Council complaint. Officers confirmed they had contacted the farmer about the matter. They disagree with Mrs X that the farmer locking the gate is illegal. Officers determined that the path is currently closed and it is not an offence for the gate to be locked. They confirmed that when the bridge has been repaired and the footpath reopened, they would make sure the gates are also reopened. Officers also explained that the bridge repair work will require consultation with English Heritage because the works would be near a scheduled monument. The Council says it aims to repair the bridge and reopen the footpath by summer 2024, or sooner if resources and weather make this possible.
There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the processes it has followed to here make its decisions to warrant us investigating. Officers have had due regard to their public safety remit, assessed the bridge’s safety and whether repairs were possible, and considered other matters related to the footpath closure. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make decisions with which someone disagrees.
Even if there has been fault by the Council here, we would not investigate. We recognise Mrs X and her family may have been caused inconvenience and annoyance by the Council closing the bridge, not yet repairing it and advising of an alternative route she says she cannot use while walking a dog. But this inconvenience and annoyance to Mrs X and her family does not amount to sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. It is not a significant injustice to Mrs X for the Council to decide not to take formal action against the farmer regarding the locked gate.
While there are some factors outside the Council’s direct control which may affect the timing, it has expressed its intention to repair the bridge and reopen the footpath in summer 2024. Had we investigated here, this is the kind of outcome we may have sought from the Council.
Investigation by us would not provide additional control over the variables which might delay the required works, nor lead to any different outcome for the complaint.
Mrs X says the Council has not taken her complaint seriously as an officer mocked and disregarded her concerns during a telephone conversation. The officer disputes Mrs X’s recollection of the call. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to warrant us investigating; and even if there has been fault, the impact of the bridge’s closure causes insufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation; and an investigation would not provide a different outcome for the complaint; and we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman