Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on a public right of way. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council told her to remove items from her land after she said it mistakenly believed there to be a public right of way over it. She said it caused her stress and would cost her money to comply with the Council’s request. She wants the Council to admit it has made a mistake and accept there is no public right of way over her land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A public right of way is land which members of the public can pass along without obstruction, even if the land is owned by a private individual.
7. Highway authorities must keep a record of public rights of way and make sure they are open for public use. In so far as Ms X’s complaint is concerned, the Council has a duty to enforce the removal of obstructions along rights of way.
8. The Council wrote to Ms X to tell her that she had placed items on a public right of way. It said these were causing an obstruction and she must remove them. It said if she didn’t remove the items within three months, it would consider taking enforcement action against her.
9. Ms X complained to the Council. She said the Council had considered the wrong information to establish the boundary of her property. She told it the area of land in question was private property. She sent it evidence which she said showed the land belonged to her and there is no public right of way across it.
10. The Council responded to Ms X and said it had considered her information along with Land Registry information, the highway definition plan, and other mapping systems and it still believed the land was a public right of way.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council’s decision-making is flawed because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council has explained how it made its decision to Ms X, and it appears to have considered the appropriate records to reach its view.
12. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the outcome of a council’s decision provided the council has acted without fault in making it.
13. Additionally, The Ombudsman cannot decide ownership of land. Those would be matters for a court to decide. Therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation as we cannot say if there is a public right of way over Ms X’s land or not.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman