Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund the full cost of a footpath diversion. The complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to refund him the full cost of a footpath diversion he paid for in 2020. He says the Council would not grant him planning permission unless he opened the footpath.
2. Mr X says it cost him around £7,000-8,000 to open the footpath. He wants the Council to refund him because the footpath has not been used.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In 2020, Mr X complained to the Council about the footpath diversion and asked it to pay the full cost. The Council refused. It said it had paid for the diversion order and Mr X had agreed to cover the remaining reasonable costs. It told him he could complain to us if he was dissatisfied.
9. In 2025, Mr X complained to the Council again and repeated his request for a full refund, saying the footpath had not been used. The Council declined to consider the complaint again because it had already responded in 2020.

Assessment

10. The Council decided not to repay the full cost of the footpath diversion in 2020, which makes this part of the complaint late, as Mr X did not complain to us until October 2025. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, then it would have been reasonable for him to complain to us at that time. I see no reason why he could not have done so. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of his complaint.
11. It was open to the Council to refuse to consider Mr X’s complaint in 2025, as it had already responded to the same issue in 2020. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman