Summary: Mr D complains about loss of access to a public route. He says he has to drive to another car park which may become fee paying in the future. The Ombudsman has discontinued the case because there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says a Public Right of Way has been closed meaning he has to drive to a different car park on school days. He is concerned the car park he now uses may become fee paying in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr D. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr D complains about the closure of a path which he says is a Public Right of Way. The Ombudsman must consider whether there is sufficient injustice to warrant investigation of a case. In this instance Mr D has to drive further to a different car park which is free to use. That is not enough to merit investigation. Mr D is concerned the car park might start charging, we cannot look at a hypothetical injustice. I appreciate this is disappointing for Mr D, but I see no basis to justify further consideration by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

5. I have discontinued the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman