On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:30:36 +0000, turtill@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:41:08 -0000, "Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > <>>This is totally frivolous...  you still would have had to take a
> > diversion
> > > > had the correct order been in place when the path was first closed. The
> > > > lack
> > > > of a correct bit of paper has caused you no additional  inconvenience or
> > > > distress.
> > > 
> > > That is a simple remedy for most people. It is not so simple when one
> > > is in a wheelchair and has to backtrack a mile which then means going
> > > home has become impossible because the wheelchair batteries are flat.
> > 
> > But you were not aware that the Order was notr in place when you first came
> > across the closure, so it made no difference. Had it been in place you would
> > have been none the wiser!!
> 
> Yes I would have known before I went that way as public announcements
> have to be made via the local newspaper so I would not have gone that
> way.
> 
> > > Besides all this it is a legal requirement to not close Foot Paths so
> > > maybe there is scope for damages without any obvious loss other than
> > > inconvenience.
> > 
> > Rubbish, the council could perhaps be fined, but that is different to you
> > getting any damages.
> 
> Well maybe I am approaching this the wrong way and should be looking
> at taking the council to a magistrates court. Is this possible?
> pete


What you really need to do is take out a private  prosecution under a
section SW3.26 against the leader of the council.  This will make them
personally responsible for any distress which you have been caused;
and will also make them liable for a private prosecution under which
you could recover a substantial amount for inconvenience, stress, and
contributory factors to any illness you may have had before the
particulars of the case caused you your concerns and which led to a
deterioration of the illness.

Best of luck - please keep us informed.