Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s highway records were incorrect and that it failed to provide him with information he had asked for as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council is in the process of amending the highway records, so Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of the amendments is premature.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s highways records incorrectly stated the width of the public highway boundary outside his property. He said he had been in contact with the Council about the boundaries for over a decade, but it had failed to identify the error.
2. He said the Council failed to provide him information about the public highway outside his property when he asked for it in July 2021.
3. The Council has subsequently accepted its highways records were incorrect and has proposed amendments. However, Mr X complained these are also wrong as the Council had narrowed the width of the public highway. He said by altering the width of the highway the Council had given away public land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• further investigation would not 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))

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council did. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the evidence he provided.
8. I discussed the complaint with the Council and considered its response to Mr X’s complaint.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr X lives on a lane which is an adopted highway. That means the Council is responsible for its upkeep. It is tarmacked and bordered by a large grass verge and fields.
11. Mr X moved to the property over a decade ago. Since living there, he has been in contact with the Council about its highway records. He said these were wrong and the boundaries of the highway shown were too narrow.
12. The Council provided Mr X a map of the highway boundaries in June 2020. Mr X challenged the accuracy of the boundaries shown, so the Council completed a review of its road records. In July 2021, the Council contacted Mr X and confirmed that the highway records were incorrect. It provided a plan of the proposed amendments.
13. Alongside this, Mr X complained to the Council that its road records team had failed to provide information that he had asked for about the highway boundaries. He said the information should be publicly available.
14. The Council responded in August 2021. It did not uphold his complaint. It said he could freely view plans of the Council’s road records at Council buildings. However, the Council charged if he wanted it to provide him a copy of the record. It said the road records team had spent a significant amount of time investigating his concerns. These were upheld and it had sent him an amended road record to reflect this.
15. Mr X contacted the Council further as he was unhappy with its response. He disagreed with the proposed amendments as he said the Council had incorrectly narrowed the width of the highway. It said it should be 30 feet throughout, but there were places the Council had narrowed it to 14 feet. He questioned the Council’s authority to amend the highway without following the correct process.
16. The Council sent Mr X its final response in September 2021. It said the error in its highway’s records occurred in the 1980s. It said it used historical records and digital mapping to identify the correct boundaries. It apologised for the length of time it took to identify the error. It said it was still in the process of consulting about the proposed amendments before finalising the road records.
17. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

18. Mr X has been in contact with the Council about the width of the highway outside his property for over a decade. The evidence he has provided shows he knew he could complain to the Ombudsman but chose not to. Therefore, any complaint about how the Council dealt with the disputed highway record is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.
19. Mr X’s complaint to the Council in July 2021 was that it had failed to answer his request for information about the adopted highway. The Information Commissioners Office is best placed to deal with complaints about freedom of information.
20. The Council has accepted there was an error in its road records. It apologised to Mr X for the delay in identifying this and is in the process of amending its road records. I do not propose to investigate this further as we can not add anything to the Council’s investigation. Also, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council is already in the process of amending its highway records.
21. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s proposed amendments. As the Council has not yet completed this process, his complaints about the accuracy of the proposed amended boundaries are premature.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have ended my investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of the highway record as it is unlikely further investigation would add anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman