Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a public right of way. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to resolve a disagreement about the legal status of lane behind his property. He said the lane was a public right of way, but other residents had blocked access to the lane with a gate and erected signs stating it was private property.
2. Mr X said he initially contacted the Council in 2019 about the lane. He said he contacted it several times throughout 2021 but it failed to respond. He said the Council failed to take enforcement action in respect of the gate and signage and had provided misleading information. He said that had resulted in confrontation between residents.
3. Mr X wants the Council to resolve the legal status of the road, take legal action where necessary and respond to complaints promptly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council wrote to Mr X in September 2020 confirming the lane behind his property was a public right of way (PROW). It said it was a criminal offence to block the PROW and the Council could demand any obstruction removed.
8. Mr X contacted the Council further in March 2021 stating that residents were threatening to close the gate on the lane to block access. He said that had resulted in confrontation. The Council responded. It said the access was not fully registered as a PROW. It said the Council has inspected and the gate was open to accommodate public use. It also said there were other public highways available if alternative access was needed. It said it was not taking enforcement action.
9. Mr X made further contact with the Council stating the lane was a PROW and that “threats to close the gate” had been made by residents. The Council responded and apologised for any contradictory advice previously given. It said that the Council had consulted on the lane becoming a PROW and there were no objections. Therefore, the Council had included it as a PROW in its draft map. It confirmed the lane had rights for the public to use. It confirmed it would write to residents stating the lane was for public use.
10. Mr X contacted the Council further in June and July stating residents were closing the gate.
11. The Council wrote to all affected residents, including Mr X at the mid-July 2021. It said that according to its records the lane was a public right of way. It said that the signage needed removing and that the gates needed to remain open.
12. Following that, the Council received information indicating that the lane might be a private road. It wrote to residents in August 2021 confirming that it needed to investigate the status of the road. It said it was not possible to confirm a timeframe for its investigations. The Council states it plans to review all the public rights of way in the area Mr X lives. It is seeking approval to appoint a consultant to complete the review. It hopes to obtain that approval in May 2022.
13. Mr X states he wants the legal status of the lane resolving. The Ombudsman cannot decide on the legal status of the lane. The Council has confirmed it is in the process of arranging approval for a consultant to review the legal status of the lane. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaints as further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, until the Council has completed its review into the legal status of the lane, it is not possible to say whether Mr X has suffered a significant injustice from any restriction to access the lane.
14. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with him. The Council has responded to points raised by Mr X either directly or through letters sent to all residents. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in its communication to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman