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:

  • 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.

  • Cornwall Council (19 021 117)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 15-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with issues relating to a public footpath that runs alongside part of his land. He says this has meant he has limited or no access to his field because of flooding, and he cannot mow his field. He says this also impacts on everyone who uses the footpath. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault. The Ombudsman has not investigated the part of Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to take sufficient action to repair the damage to the surface of the footpath. This is because he can take this complaint to court.

  • Dorset Council (19 021 228)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 27-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council says it will take over ten years to make a modification order about a footpath near her home. She says this is an unreasonable timescale. She says the footpath is blocked so she has to walk down a single-track road which is unsafe. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 022)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 13-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council has followed the incorrect process in its attempt to change a bridleway into a byway open to all traffic to allow vehicles to access a Council owned car park. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint further. The Planning Inspector held a public inquiry into the Council's decision to buy the land using compulsory purchase powers and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider matters already considered by the Planning Inspector. Mr X has also raised matters we have considered in a previous complaint and is disputing points of law which the courts are better placed to decide.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 003 546)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 13-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's delay in referring a map modification order to the Planning Inspectorate. The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation. This is because Mr X has asked the Ombudsman to withdraw his complaint as the Council has now referred the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.