Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Rights of way

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Kent County Council (20 006 440)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact creation of a road would have on a public right-of-way and failed to respond to the nine questions he posed on behalf of local residents' groups. There is no fault in how the Council considered the impact the road would have on the public right-of-way. The Council failed to respond to the complaint properly. An apology and payment to Mr X is satisfactory remedy.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (20 011 183)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 14-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council has failed to ensure the public can fully use the public rights of way network in his local area which means he and other residents cannot properly access them. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 014 126)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X is acting on behalf a bridleway association. He has made a complaint about the Council for failing to determine a number of map modification applications which concern public rights of way. The Ombudsman has found fault that the Council has failed to determine the applications as directed by the Secretary of State. That said, we cannot provide the outcome Mr X wants as the Council has a plan in place for addressing its backlog and we cannot direct its financial resources in this respect. Further, we do not consider the complainant has suffered a personal and significant injustice by reason of the fault by the Council.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 010 225)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 06-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council have not consulted properly about access to land before replacing a gate on a cycle route. The Council did not consult properly before it replaced the gate. Mr B and other cyclists have lost the opportunity to comments on the changes and have suffered a loss of access. The Council has agreed to consult on the changes, retake its decision and issue guidance to staff.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 008 980)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 28-May-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain about the Councils' actions in relation to public rights of way. The Ombudsman cannot investigate some elements of this complaint and could not achieve anything from further investigation of other elements. We have therefore used our discretion to discontinue the investigation.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 327)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 27-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X says there was an error in a legal document he completed to make a compensation claim against the Council. The Ombudsman discontinued investigation of this complaint because Mr X did not suffer an injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman.

  • Cornwall Council (20 003 331)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 21-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the extension by the Council of a Temporary Closure Order for a local public footpath. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the process the Council followed to extend the order.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 005 803)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her request to modify the Definitive Map to include some paths she uses regularly as public rights of way. The Council delayed responding to Ms X's application and failed to tell her about her right to appeal its decision to the Secretary of State. The Council should apologise, make a new decision giving appeal rights and pay Ms X £150.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 000 236)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 15-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not take action to prevent an Academy School closing a footpath used by parents to access an Infant School. We uphold the complaint finding the Council did not properly consider the impact of the closure on users of the path when it decided not to take legal action against the Academy. We also its reply to Mr B's complaint was misleading. These faults caused Mr B injustice. Because it is uncertain if the Council would have taken the same approach but for its fault and he was put to unnecessary time and trouble in this matter. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

  • Shropshire Council (19 002 080)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 06-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council wrongly sold her neighbour a piece of land between their properties which forms part of a public right of way and then failed to prevent the neighbour blocking up the passageway. She also says the Council delayed in resolving the matter and in responding to her complaint. We find the Council was at fault in wrongly including the passageway in the sale and in taking too long to resolve the issue. It also failed to keep Mrs B informed and delayed in responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.