Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a dispute about a Right of Way at Mr X’s property. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mishandled a dispute over a public footpath which crosses his property. He said this has caused him stress and disruption to his personal life and property interests. He asked the Council to apologise for contradictory statements, confirm in writing the precise route of the footpath and review internal processes to prevent future disputes.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s home has a Right of Way which runs through his property boundary.
6. Following a request from a resident, the Council put up a sign to the footpath in April 2025 based on its electronic map record. The Council then received a complaint from a member of the public that the sign was in the wrong place. The Council checked its hard copy records of footpaths and confirmed the footpath followed a different route, across Mr X’s property.
7. Mr X complained to the Council it did not have the correct route for the footpath. He asked for the footpath to run down his driveway, rather than across the front of his property.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said that it had checked the Definitive Map of footpaths based on historical plans and confirmed the footpath ran across the front of Mr X’s property. It provided Mr X with a copy of the Definitive Map showing the footpath route. It also told Mr X that it would support an application for the footpath to be diverted along his driveway.
9. The Council has provided evidence that it has since worked with Mr X on a footpath diversion order to change the route of the footpath. It stated it had waived Mr X’s application fee for the diversion order.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council explained to Mr X why it had removed the footpath sign and has worked with him on diverting the footpath.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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