Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to clear an obstruction along a public footpath. This is because it is reasonable for him to pursue the matter at court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to remove an obstruction on a public footpath. He says the Council did not carry out its duties under the Highways Act 1980 after he filed a legal notice. Mr X says this prevented use of the path, caused him avoidable time and trouble, and left him frustrated with little confidence in the Council. He wants the Council to reconsider its decision, explain why it did not act, confirm it considered all lawful options, and review how it handles obstructions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021, Mr X formally served notice under Section 130a of the Highways Act 1980 on the Council to remove an obstruction on a public footpath.
7. The Council inspected the site and issued a notice to the landowner to remove it, but the obstruction remained.
8. Between 2021 and 2022, Mr X repeatedly requested updates. The Council said action was ongoing and cases are dealt with on a priority basis.
9. In August 2025, the Council issued a final response to Mr X. It acknowledged the fence obstructed the path and the stiles were unauthorised but said it had decided not to take enforcement action, because the path was unusable further along and an alternative route existed. It also explained that restoring the path would require costly engineering works with environmental impacts. The Council concluded that as enforcement would not create a usable through route, it was not justified.
10. Mr X remained dissatisfied and says the Council failed to act on the original notice and delayed unreasonably.
11. The Highways Act 1980 sets out how disputes about obstructions on public rights of way should be resolved, including the option for a court to decide if an authority has failed in its legal duties. Mr X could reasonably use that legal remedy. We do not normally investigate matters where the courts are better placed to decide.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue this matter at court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue this matter at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman