Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about rights of way because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to properly investigate the obstruction of a right of way which he says means he is unable to remove his caravan from his property and unable to access garages near his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. As part of the Council’s consideration of Mr Y’s complaint, it explained that the right of way Mr Y has referred to is an unadopted alleyway and is a private access to the garages near My Y’s home. It also considered a fence, which Mr Y says is blocking the access. It found following a review of records and a site inspection that the fence was in line with where it had been previously and was not in its professional opinion causing an obstruction. It also found that the fence was land belonging to the owner and not over the boundary. Consequently, the Council said it would not take action in this case.
6. Mr Y disagrees with the Council’s decision not to act. He consequently, approached us. We are not an appeal body. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. In this case, the Council considered relevant information, including evidence provided by Mr Y, its definitive map and its Public Rights of Way register before making its decision. As the matter was properly considered, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
7. Further, in this case, Mr Y is seeking to enforce his rights as a landowner to access the garages near his home. This is a private law matter, relating to what rights and responsibilities individual landowners have in the area. Such matters can only be decided, where there is dispute, by the courts. Consequently, as we could not determine what land rights there are or are not in the area, the courts are better placed than us to decide the issues in this complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman