Rights of way

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Lincolnshire County Council (18 005 188)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 09-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council not providing an alternative safe path for pedestrians after it closed a footway. Mr Q says this puts pedestrians in danger. There was fault with the Council's actions. However, there was no significant injustice because the outcome would have been the same had the faults not occurred.

  • Redcar & Cleveland Council (17 018 353)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 23-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council inappropriately erected a fence between their rear alleyway and a road in an adjoining housing estate. There was fault by the Council. It failed to apply for planning permission for the fence or properly consider the impact the fence would have on rights of access. The Council agreed to remove the fence to restore the position before the fault occurred.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 002 257)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 02-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to take steps to enforce the reinstatement of a cross field footpath after the landowner ploughed it. The Council is not at fault. The Council inspected the footpath and decided it was already reinstated to an acceptable standard.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 885)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 04-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has known since at least 2014 that a bridleway ran next to her property but continued to encourage vehicles to use it. We found there was fault in the Council's approach to Mrs X's complaints about the use of the bridleway. This fault stretches back as far as 2012 and has caused Mrs X significant injustice. The Ombudsman recommended how this should be remedied by the Council and it has agreed to do so.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 001 683)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 24-Jul-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council temporarily closed footpaths in his area. Mr B uses those footpaths daily and had to find alternative routes. The Ombudsman considers there is no significant injustice to warrant his involvement and has discontinued investigation. The impact on Mr B would be the same regardless of fault.

  • Isle of Wight Council (18 000 347)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 03-Jul-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman closed a complaint alleging the Council failed to remove two obstructions on a public footpath close to the complainant's home because no worthwhile outcome is achievable through investigation of the complaint now.

  • East Sussex County Council (17 014 511)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 27-Apr-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council obstructed and delayed the process of establishing whether a passageway near a property he owns was a right of way (RoW). There was fault by the Council when it advertised a footpath modification order in June 2016. That did not cause significant injustice to Mr B. There was no other fault by the Council.

  • Somerset County Council (17 007 818)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 09-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has delayed in completing its modification investigation of Bridleway Y. The Council's failure to complete its modification investigation of this bridleway in a timely manner is fault. But this fault has not caused Ms X a significant injustice.

  • Babergh District Council (17 007 022)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 17-Jan-2018

    Summary: The Council has not always communicated effectively with the complainant in response to her enquiries or complaint. But it is not at fault for how it has considered the substantive complaint about the upkeep of footpaths in a countryside area it manages.

  • Norfolk County Council (17 009 937)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 10-Jan-2018

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to the report of a blocked Public Right of Way.