Summary: Mr X complains the Council has delayed unreasonably in submitting a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to the Secretary of State for confirmation. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to take action to submit to the Secretary of State a DMMO raised and published in February 2019 concerning the inclusion of a right of way. Mr X says the Council should submit the Order for confirmation immediately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council's responses to his complaint under its complaints procedure. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. County Councils and Unitary Authorities have a legal obligation to prepare and keep updated a Definitive Map which shows every right of way in their area and the nature of the rights over the paths shown. To record a right of way on a Definitive Map, a DMMO must be applied for.
5. In February 2019, following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, the Council raised and published a DMMO concerning a right of way which Mr X has been seeking to establish for a number of years.
6. Having raised the Order, the Council carried out the required consultation which concluded in April 2019 with letters of both support and objection, including the Council’s own objection.
7. In accordance with the relevant procedures, as objections have been made, the Order must be determined by the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. This can be done by means of a public local inquiry, a hearing or by the written representations procedure.
8. In September 2019, the Council responded to a formal complaint Mr X submitted about its delay in submitting the Order to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. It said it had only recently completed the process of collating the responses but later acknowledged this had taken more time than was desirable. It said delay had occurred and that this was due to limited Council resources, the large amounts of documentation involved and problems which had arisen as a result of the unusual situation of the Definitive Map having been lost. However, it confirmed it had asked the Legal Services of another county council to assist in proceeding to the Planning Inspectorate for a confirmation inquiry for the DMMO and that this will involve the reconstitution of the Definitive Map. It told Mr X that it awaited Legal Services’ advice and that it intended to act upon it in the first quarter of 2020.

Assessment

9. I understand Mr X’s frustration that an outcome he has been seeking since 2014 has yet to be finalised. He says only a simple administrative action is required by the Council to submit the Order to the Planning Inspectorate and that the reconstitution of the Definitive Map is not a pre-requisite for confirmation submission.
10. The Council has not stated the reconstituted Definitive Map is a pre-requisite but such work is clearly related to the DMMO and it has sought assistance from the neighbouring council’s Legal Services to progress these matters.
11. Both Mr X and the Council agree that a public inquiry is the best way forward. While I note Mr X’s concerns about the time that has passed, and the implications this may have for weakening the case for the Order, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to the submission of the Order at an earlier time.
12. Mr X says he also wants an apology for the delay and for disciplinary procedures to be taken where necessary. However, we will not generally investigate just to obtain an apology and, by law, we cannot involve ourselves in personnel or disciplinary matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman