Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his request to alter a right of way which crosses his property and the serving of notices requiring him to remove his obstruction of the footpath. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. A court will decide the dispute if the parties cannot agree.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unreasonably changed its position from 2019 when it verbally agreed he could erect a fence and style over a public footpath that crosses his land. He says the Council has served notices requiring him to alter his fence and a wall and denies agreeing his scheme. Mr X says the Council is at fault and will cause him unnecessary expense. He says the notices lack details of what is required.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s information and comments including the Council’s reply to his complaint. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
5. Investigation is not likely to achieve what Mr X wants. The Ombudsman cannot quash the notice or say the Council should not act to protect a right of way. The disagreement is based on a conversation some two years ago. Mr X confirms the Council is correct to say he did not formally apply to do the work and did not receive written approval. The Council says there is a formal procedure to follow and the officer could not grant this type of permission verbally. It has checked the records and has no evidence that he did or of misinformation.
6. Mr X tells me he is about to meet the Council at his property and is hopeful agreement will be reached on necessary work to the fence which is the main issue. He says he has done work to the wall which was relatively quick and to which he did not object. Should the parties fail to agree a court is likely to decide the case. The Council will either prosecute Mr X for an offence (Highways Act 1980, section 137) or seek to recover the costs of any work to remedy what it says is an obstruction of a right of way.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his request to alter a right of way which crosses his property and the serving of notices requiring him to remove his obstruction of the footpath. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. A court will decide the dispute if the parties cannot agree.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman