Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of correcting and amending the records of a highway next to his home and disagrees with the accuracy of its decision. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to update its incorrect records for the highway. It reached a decision it was entitled to make, and we cannot therefore criticise its merits. Mr X has the right to contest the accuracy of the highway records and disagreements about land ownership in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of correcting and amending records of a highway next to his home. He said it:
• had delayed making amendments to correct the highway boundary records as it said it would in 2021 following a previous complaint to the Ombudsman;
• had failed to follow the correct process in narrowing the Highway; and
• revised the plan for the highway incorrectly.
2. Mr X also said the Council had failed to stop his neighbour’s obstructions or encroachment of the Highway.
3. As a result, Mr X said he has experienced distress as utility undertakers have been unable to do works in or around the highway, and due to actions taken by his neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of my investigation, I have considered:
• Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
• the additional information Mr X provided;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• the relevant law and guidance relevant to the 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

Relevant law and guidance

Road records

10. Councils are required to keep an up-to-date list of highways and streets within their area which are maintainable at the public’s expense. This should be available to be inspected by any person at its office. (Highway Act 1980, section 36)
11. The Council has a list of streets available on its website, which shows the streets which are maintainable at the public expense. More detailed records of streets are available to be inspected in its offices.
12. Councils has the power to carry out, in relation to a highway maintainable at the public expense by them, any work for the improvement of the highway. This includes the variations to the width of carriageways and footways. (Highways Act, Section 62)
13. There is no statutorily prescribed procedure for achieving amending, updating or correcting road records a council holds.

Geoplace

14. Geoplace is the central information source for UK addresses and streets. Its database includes the National Street Gazetteer. This brings together the Council’s street datasets with other datasets such as Ordnance Survey and Royal Mail.
15. Utility undertakers use the information from the National Street Gazetteer when carrying out work to identify adopted and unadopted roads.

Obstructions of the highway

16. It is the duty of a highway authority to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
17. Any person can serve notice on a highway authority in relation to any obstruction. If the person is not satisfied the obstruction has been removed, he can apply to a magistrates courts for an order requiring the authority to take action.

Background

18. Mr X lives on a lane which is an adopted highway (the Highway), which means the Council is responsible for its upkeep. It is tarmacked and bordered by a large grass verge and fields.
19. 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 incorrect.
20. The Council provided Mr X a plan 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.
21. Mr X contacted the Council again as he was unhappy with its response. He disagreed with the proposed amendments as he said the Council had wrongly approved the narrowing of the Highway. He 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.
22. The Council sent Mr X its final response in September 2021. It said the error in its road 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 and said it was still in the process of consulting about the proposed amendments before finalising the road records.
23. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
24. In our previous decision in late 2021, we found:
• We could not consider Mr X’s concerns from over a decade ago as this had been brought to our attention late. We therefore only considered the Council’s handling of his concerns in 2021.
• Mr X’s concerns about information sharing should be brought to the Information Commissioners attention.
• We could not add to the Council’s investigation as it had accepted there was an error in its road records. It had apologised to Mr X for the delay in identifying this and it intended to amend its records. Also, further investigation was unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
• We found we could not consider Mr X disagreement with the Council’s proposed amendments. This was because it had not completed this process, and his complaint about this was therefore premature.

What happened

25. Since early 2022, the Council have:
• consulted with the only other resident and owner on the Highway for their view on its proposed amendments;
• considered Mr X’s views and disagreement around the Highway boundary;
• updated its road records with its findings of the width of the Highway, which is available at its offices.
• reshared is Highway boundary findings and map with Mr X and his neighbour.
26. Mr X complained to the Council again. He said he had visited its office and seen the road records. He said these were the same as the proposed map the Council had shared with him in July 2021, but he believed these remained incorrect and a proposal for future narrowing of the highway.
27. In response the Council told Mr X it had already addressed his complaint about the highway. It explained it had agreed there had been an error, which it had investigated in detail, shared its proposed amended plans with Mr X and his neighbour, and subsequently updated its road records. It acknowledged Mr X disagreed with its findings and decisions, but it would not respond further about the matter.
28. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint again. He explained:
• his neighbour wrongly believes he owns the gates, lanes and the Highway land, including some of Mr X’ land;
• his neighbour has been interrupting his water supply. Mr X said he has a right to request a connection to the main water supply, but the utility undertaker has not agreed to this as his neighbour claims rights to the subsoil under the Highway and land next to Mr X’s property boundary;
• he had issues with phone and internet connections and the utility undertakers could not do the necessary works due to lack of clarity around the Highway boundary and ownership of land;
• his neighbour trespassed and is using land which is not his, obstructed the Highway and abusing his privilege to use gates to control cattle, placing vehicles or obstacles on highway land to intentionally prevent large vehicles access to Mr X’s property;
• the Police told him it cannot take action on a public highway where the status of the highway boundary and ownership of land is in dispute. It had offered Community Dispute Resolution Services to Mr X and his neighbour;
• his Majesty’s Land Registry had told him it had no record of the Highway, and the road was within the property record of his neighbour’s farm. It suggested he sought legal advice; and
• the Council had failed to follow the correct procedure to complete the Highway narrowing plans as it suggested to the Ombudsman during our previous investigation.
29. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it considers Mr X’s disputes with his neighbour to be a civil matter relating to disputed ownership of land and rights, which is not for the Council to consider as such matters are for the courts to determine. It confirmed it does not own the land under or next to the Highway, nor the passing place next to his neighbour’s farm.

Analysis and findings

30. We have previously found Mr X’s concerns relating to the Council’s handling of the highway records over the last decade were late. Also, we do not reinvestigate complaints we have already considered, I will therefore only consider the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns from the start of 2022.

Highway records

31. The Council agreed its records of the Highway next to Mr X’s home were incorrect in 2021. It subsequently:
• shared its proposed amended map of the highway with him in July 2021 following consideration of the information Mr X shared, information contained in ordinance maps and data mapping exercises;
• responded to Mr X’s complaints about the accuracy of its proposed amended Highway record;
• consulted with Mr X’s neighbour in early 2022, who was the only other listed address on the Highway, and considered his representations; and
• reached its view it had sufficiently set out the Highway boundaries as accurately as it could in its proposed amended road records and shared its final Highway map with Mr X and his neighbour.
32. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Council came to the right decision. Such matters are for the courts. I can only consider whether there was fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view.
33. I have not found the Council at fault for how it handled updating its incorrect records for the Highway since 2022. In reaching my view I am conscious:
• the Council has powers under the Highway Act 1980 to amend a Highway maintainable by it, which would include the incorrect records it held;
• there is no statutory process the Council was required to follow to amend or update road records it holds of public maintainable highways;
• the Council was entitled to reach its view it was only necessary to consult with Mr X and Mr X’s neighbour as they were there only addresses on the Highway; and
• shortly after the Ombudsman’s previous decision, the Council obtained the views Mr X’s neighbour. It therefore had both parties’ views before it reached and shared its final decision with them.
34. I acknowledge Mr X believes the Council should have consulted more widely with other residents and the Parish Council and continues to disagree with the Council’s decision. However, as I have found no fault in the process the Council followed and it reached views it was entitled to make, I cannot criticise the merits of decisions it made.
35. In addition, while the Council is responsible for ensuring its records relating to the Highway are correct, it is not responsible for the accuracy of records held by other bodies regarding the Highway or land ownership.

Ownership of land

36. I understand Mr X has experienced difficulties to get works done by utility undertakers such as phone, internet, and water services as a result of lack of clarity over the boundaries and ownership of land near Mr X’s home or under the Highway.
37. The Council updated its records in early 2022 regarding boundaries of the Highway. It has also consistently confirmed it has not refused any works by utility undertakers and all the Highway is maintainable by the Council. This is consistent with information in the Council’s Road Records and on the Geoplace National Street Gazetteer used by utility undertakers.
38. Mr X has continued to be unable to get various utility undertakers to do the works he requested. I am therefore not satisfied Mr X’s delays or difficulties in getting utility undertakers to do the works he requested were due to failure by the Council to keep accurate road records. Rather, this was because there is an ongoing dispute about ownership of land next to or under the highway.
39. While I acknowledge the frustrations Mr X has experienced due to the uncertainty about land ownership, I cannot consider issues which relate to disputes about land ownership. The Council was correct to tell Mr X he could bring his disagreement about boundary rights of the Highway and land next to his home to the attention of a court, as this is the appropriate route to have such matters determined.

Actions by Mr X’s neighbour

40. I understand Mr X has ongoing issues with his neighbour which the Council considers to be a civil dispute between them.
41. I agree with the Council’s view. The issues relating to interruptions to Mr X’s water supply, parking or placing obstacles on private or disputed land, and refusal for utility undertakers to do works on disputed land are civil matters.
42. The Ombudsman cannot consider civil disputes and Mr X has the right to bring disputes regarding landownership or property rights to a court for its determination.
43. The Council has a duty to ensure no obstructions are placed on the Highway, which includes the Highway surface and roadside. However, it has not found Mr X’s neighbour has unreasonably caused obstructions to the Highway. Its view was Mr X’s neighbour has rights to use gates for managing livestock and owned a disputed passing place.
44. As I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views around the width of the Highway, I cannot criticise its decision. However, Mr X has the right to ask a court for its consideration on the matter, and it can subsequently require the Council to take appropriate action, if it agrees with Mr X’s view.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman