Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it maintained a path from Mr X’s house to the road. We have not investigated the parts of Mr X’s complaint that he previously raised with us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a path from his house to the road. Specifically, he complained the Council:
1. refused to maintain an unsafe public path, deeming it safe;
2. refused to tell him what category of adopted path it is and therefore what the Council’s duties are;
3. did not fill in holes in the path despite promising to do so; and,
4. deliberately delayed dealing with the issue, and ignored evidence in its complaint response.
2. Mr X said the path is the only access to and from his home. He said it is difficult to negotiate in poor weather, and it affects services’ access and getting his wheelie bin to the road for collection. Mr X said this caused stress and anxiety. He said one of the unfilled holes caused him an injury.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman

7. Mr X complained to us in March 2025 about the same issue. He complained about delays and about the Council not accepting responsibility for maintaining or repairing the path that leads from his house to the road. Mr X said he had injured his shoulder as a result of the path’s poor condition.
8. In July 2025, we decided there was no evidence the path was adopted. Therefore, the Council had no duty to maintain it. We decided there was not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. For that reason, we did not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

This complaint

9. In August 2025, Mr X complained to the Council again. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in the same month. In September 2025, Mr X complained to us again.
10. I have investigated the Council’s actions from May 2025. This is when the Council said it would include Mr X’s path in its safety inspections. I have not investigated the Council’s actions before May 2025. This is because they were covered in our previous consideration of the complaint.

Part a of the complaint

11. In April 2026, I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. He complained the Council refused to maintain the public path, saying it was safe (part a of the complaint). Mr X complained about the Council’s safety inspections of the path in June 2025 and February 2026.
12. As I have said above, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply.
13. In this case, the Council had not had an opportunity to respond to Mr X’s complaint about the February 2026 safety inspection. This is because it responded to his complaint in August 2025. This means this element of the complaint is technically too early for us to consider. However, the Council agreed to allow the Ombudsman to investigate its February 2026 inspection (and its later inspection in April 2026).
14. For this reason, I have investigated the Council’s actions up to and including its inspection in April 2026.

Part c of the complaint

15. Mr X complained the Council did not fill in holes in the path despite promising to do so (part c of the complaint).
16. Mr X showed me an email he sent the Council in November 2024 where he complained the Council still had not filled in holes in the path, as it had agreed.
17. As I have said above, I have not investigated the Council’s actions before May 2025. This is because they were covered in our previous consideration of the complaint.
18. I find this part of the complaint either was included, or could have been included, in our previous consideration of Mr X’s complaint. For this reason, I have not investigated part c of Mr X’s complaint.

Part d of the complaint

19. Mr X complained the Council deliberately delayed dealing with the issue, and ignored evidence in its complaint response (part d of the complaint).
20. As I have said above, I have not investigated the Council’s actions before May 2025. This is because they were covered in our previous consideration of the complaint.
21. I have looked at our previous consideration of Mr X’s earlier complaint. Part of that complaint was that the Council consistently delayed, and its complaint response ignored evidence.
22. Mr X said the Council told the Ombudsman at that time that it had not investigated his previous complaint. Mr X said this was the reason we did not investigate that complaint.
23. I do not agree. The outcome of our previous consideration of Mr X’s complaint was that we did not find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. This is not the same. I explained to Mr X what our previous decision was. I explained that we do not allow a second opportunity to bring the same complaint to us twice if we decided not to investigate the first time around.
24. I am not satisfied Mr X has brought a new complaint to us about new delays and ignoring evidence. I find this is the same complaint we have already considered. As we have already considered this element of Mr X’s complaint, I have not investigated part d of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

25. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the relevant Council policy, set out below, and our previous consideration of Mr X’s earlier complaint.
26. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Maintenance of highways and footways

27. The Council’s Highways Safety Inspection Manual says:

“Safety Inspections are designed to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to the users of the network or the wider community. The risk of danger is assessed on site by the safety inspector.”

28. The manual says the Council has a wide variety of road and footway networks. It says:

“Users should expect to find a condition which is safe and consistent with the type and location of that infrastructure.”

What happened

29. Mr X told the Council that the path running between his home and the road was too narrow. He said the path’s tarmac had eroded over time.
30. In May 2025, the Council told Mr X it was not responsible for maintaining the path that runs between his house and the road. It said it was responsible for maintaining the highway verge at the bottom of the path. But it said it would include access to Mr X’s property in its next safety inspection.
31. In June, the Council did a safety inspection. It agreed to clear some vegetation that was overgrowing at the sides of the path. It cleared the vegetation in July.
32. Also in July, the Council met with Mr X. It said its safety inspection had found the path safe for public use, other than the vegetation which it had cleared. Mr X disagreed the path was safe. He asked for a copy of the safety report.
33. In August, Mr X complained. The Council responded the same month. It said its safety inspection did not find any defects. It said there appeared to be an adequate width of tarmac for pedestrian access. Mr X disagreed.
34. In September, the Council did another safety inspection. It found an uneven area of the path, so it agreed to do remedial patching works. The Council patched the uneven area.
35. In January and April 2026, the Council did two more safety inspections. The Council found no safety defects that needed action.

Analysis

Maintaining the path

36. Mr X complained the Council refused to maintain an unsafe public path, deeming it safe (part a of the complaint). Mr X said the Council refused to maintain the path because of a “grossly inaccurate” safety report. He said the path is not wide enough to safely take his wheelie bin to the roadside for collection.
37. The Council said that determining who owns the path and therefore who is responsible for it was a complex legal point. However, the Council had decided that on the balance of probabilities it is responsible for maintaining the path to a safe pedestrian level. It said its responsibility only extends to maintaining the path to a safe pedestrian level.
38. Despite this recent decision, the Council has done a number of safety inspections on Mr X’s path. On two of these inspections, it found it needed to take action to maintain the path. It then completed these actions. For the later two inspections, it did not find defects that needed action.
39. I am satisfied the Council completed its safety inspections, and the works resulting from those inspections, in line with its Highways Safety Inspection Manual. The Council made its decisions (about the path’s safety) in line with the policy set out in its manual. As it made these decisions without fault, we cannot challenge the outcome of its decisions.
40. Mr X disagreed with the Council: he said the width of the path is a safety issue. This is not evidence of fault.
41. I do not agree with Mr X that the Council refused to maintain the path. I find the Council took action to maintain the path. However, the Council has not improved the path. Mr X disagrees that the path, as it stands, is safe. This is not evidence of fault.
42. The Council is under no obligation or duty to improve the path. I find no fault with the Council for its decision not to widen or reinstate the original width of Mr X’s path (which he acknowledged has been deteriorating slowly over many years).
43. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

The Council’s duties

44. Mr X complained the Council refused to tell him what category of adopted path it is and therefore what the Council’s duties are (part b of the complaint). Mr X said not knowing what designation the path is has been a problem. He said it means he does not know what powers or duties the Council has to maintain the path.
45. I do not find the Council refused to tell Mr X what it was responsible for. The Council explained that ownership of the path, and therefore legal responsibility, was a complex legal point. It has taken time for the Council to come to a view on this. I do not find the Council at fault for the time it has taken to come to this decision. This was reasonable given the legal complexities in this matter.
46. The Council has now decided it is responsible for maintaining, but not improving, the path. If Mr X wants to challenge the Council’s responsibility further, he can ask the magistrates’ court to determine this legal issue. This is not something the Ombudsman can determine.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman