Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a highway obstruction. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to clear an obstruction caused by tables and chairs being placed on a highway outside a pub.
2. Mr Y says he is unable to use the highway from one end because of the obstruction to access his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y contacted the Council in November 2020 about a local pub which had been placing furniture along a road leading to his property. Mr Y said this was causing an obstruction to the highway.
7. The Council investigated the issue but decided not to take action to remove the obstruction in July 2021. This was because it said there was insufficient evidence of the route having a highway status. It said it had considered the Definitive Map and Statement, which is a legal record of public rights of way, but the route was not included on either of these records. The Council provided information on how Mr Y could apply to have the route recorded as a public right of way on the Definitive Map.
8. Mr Y was unhappy with the Council’s response and explained that he considered the route to be an unadopted highway. After further correspondence, the Council provided a final response to Mr Y’s complaint in October. Mr Y then asked us to investigate.

Analysis

9. The Council considered Mr Y’s complaint, the Definitive Map and Statement and historical sources. It concluded there is no public right of way along the route. Where there is no public right of way, the Council cannot enforce the removal of obstructions along a route. Consequently, the Council has not taken enforcement action.
10. While Mr Y may disagree about whether there is a public right of way or not, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
11. As the Council has properly considered the issue, using relevant information before deciding not to remove furniture from the route Mr Y has complained about, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman