Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to resolve a dispute involving land which he owns and which the Council says is part of the public highway. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and any dispute about the designation of the land can be referred to the courts for determination.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council is wrong to claim part of his land forms part of the public highway and that it should change the publication which records it as being such, or refer the matter to the Land Registry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council that part of his property is wrongly recorded in the Road Record (a publication which records highway maintainable at public expense) as being part of the public highway and that it should be amended. He says he has spoken to the Land Registry and solicitors who confirm his title and plan and that he has exclusive rights to the land.
5. In responding to his complaint, the Council said it considered the Road Record to be accurate. It explained that land shown as highway is not property claimed by the authority but rather that the surface rights are vested in the authority with the ownership of the subsoil retained by the title holder, in this case Mr B. It confirmed it will not amend the record

Assessment

6. The Council has explained the land in question can be owned by Mr B but still be public highway land which gives the authority surface rights over it. It has seen the Land Registry entry for Mr B’s property but has explained that the record of the adopted public highway does not conflict with his land ownership or contradict the information the Land Registry holds.
7. Mr B says the Council’s view is wrong. However, if he wishes to dispute its position it is open to him to seek a determination from the courts on it. Such a matter would be for the courts and not the Ombudsman to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and any dispute about the designation of the land can be referred to the courts for determination.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman