Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly consider the evidence Mr X provided about safety conditions of a public right of way. This is because it is reasonable for him to pursue the matter at court. In any event, the injustice Mr X claims to have experienced is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider the evidence he provided about safety conditions of a public right of way. He said this has caused an ongoing safety concern and frustration.
2. Mr X wants the Council to reassess the condition of the route and remove any trip hazards. He wants the Council to review its process to ensure its decisions are evidence based. Mr X also wanted the Council to show that appropriate standards are in place when realigning public rights of way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2026 about exposed tree stumps following completion of realignment work.
8. The Council carried out an inspection. It said it removed any obvious trip hazards. It said it was satisfied the route was suitable. It said the realigning of the footpath complied with its duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to protect and assert the public’s right to use the highway.
9. The Council said it would continue to monitor the footpath. But Mr X remained unhappy and said an exposed tree stump remained visible.
10. Where a statutory alternative remedy exists, we normally expect people to use it. The Highways Act 1980 sets out how disputes about obstructions on public rights of way should be resolved. A member of the public can serve notice on the highway authority under Section 56 of the Act, and doing so is free of charge. If the authority does not admit liability or fails to repair, the complainant can apply to the Magistrates' Court for a repair order.
11. While there are costs attached to doing so, the magistrates’ court can make an order requiring the Council to do the work. This is not something we could achieve. It is also open to Mr X to ask the court to make a costs order should his claim be successful. Weighing the cost of such action against the benefit Mr X seeks to achieve, it is reasonable for him to use the statutory process available to him.
12. In any event, even if we decided it was not reasonable for Mr X to use his alternative right to take the matter to court, we would likely decide the injustice he says he has experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
13. Mr X’s frustration and concern about safety would be unlikely to meet this threshold.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to pursue this matter at court. In any event, the injustice Mr X claims to have experienced is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman