Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Rights of way


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 013 660)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 29-Jun-2022

    Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain about the Council's decision to build a new footpath/cycleway to create a new right of way on open green land near to their properties causing a nuisance. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (21 011 255)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to determine a map modification application which concerns public rights of way. The Council has delayed forwarding the definitive map modification order application to the Secretary of State and has advertised a wrong date for making representations against the application Mrs X complained about. That said, we cannot provide the outcome Mrs X wants as the Council has a plan in place for addressing its backlog and we cannot direct its financial resources in this respect. Our investigation is now complete.

  • Kent County Council (20 006 440)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact creation of a road would have on a public right-of-way and failed to respond to the nine questions he posed on behalf of local residents' groups. There is no fault in how the Council considered the impact the road would have on the public right-of-way. The Council failed to respond to the complaint properly. An apology and payment to Mr X is satisfactory remedy.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (20 011 183)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 14-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council has failed to ensure the public can fully use the public rights of way network in his local area which means he and other residents cannot properly access them. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 014 126)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X is acting on behalf a bridleway association. He has made a complaint about the Council for failing to determine a number of map modification applications which concern public rights of way. The Ombudsman has found fault that the Council has failed to determine the applications as directed by the Secretary of State. That said, we cannot provide the outcome Mr X wants as the Council has a plan in place for addressing its backlog and we cannot direct its financial resources in this respect. Further, we do not consider the complainant has suffered a personal and significant injustice by reason of the fault by the Council.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 010 225)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 06-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council have not consulted properly about access to land before replacing a gate on a cycle route. The Council did not consult properly before it replaced the gate. Mr B and other cyclists have lost the opportunity to comments on the changes and have suffered a loss of access. The Council has agreed to consult on the changes, retake its decision and issue guidance to staff.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 008 980)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 28-May-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain about the Councils' actions in relation to public rights of way. The Ombudsman cannot investigate some elements of this complaint and could not achieve anything from further investigation of other elements. We have therefore used our discretion to discontinue the investigation.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 327)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 27-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X says there was an error in a legal document he completed to make a compensation claim against the Council. The Ombudsman discontinued investigation of this complaint because Mr X did not suffer an injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman.

  • Cornwall Council (20 003 331)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 21-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the extension by the Council of a Temporary Closure Order for a local public footpath. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the process the Council followed to extend the order.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 005 803)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her request to modify the Definitive Map to include some paths she uses regularly as public rights of way. The Council delayed responding to Ms X's application and failed to tell her about her right to appeal its decision to the Secretary of State. The Council should apologise, make a new decision giving appeal rights and pay Ms X £150.