Rights of way


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • City of York Council (18 010 841)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 09-May-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the time it was taking the Council to make an order on Mr X's application to change the rights of way map. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £250 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its delay. The Council also agreed to review its rights of way of service with the aim of reducing its backlog of applications.

  • Coventry City Council (18 011 147)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 15-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the time taken by the Council to consider his application to register a right of way and says it misled the Planning Inspectorate when he appealed about it. He is also unhappy it allocated his complaint to one of the officers he was complaining about. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the Council's handling of Mr X's application to register a right of way or in its contact with the Planning Inspectorate. There was fault in how it allocated his complaint inappropriately to an officer he had complained about but this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

  • Portsmouth City Council (18 013 877)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr D complained that the Council failed to raise a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO). I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the DMMO, or in the way it dealt with Mr D's complaint.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (18 005 188)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 09-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council not providing an alternative safe path for pedestrians after it closed a footway. Mr Q says this puts pedestrians in danger. There was fault with the Council's actions. However, there was no significant injustice because the outcome would have been the same had the faults not occurred.

  • Redcar & Cleveland Council (17 018 353)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 23-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council inappropriately erected a fence between their rear alleyway and a road in an adjoining housing estate. There was fault by the Council. It failed to apply for planning permission for the fence or properly consider the impact the fence would have on rights of access. The Council agreed to remove the fence to restore the position before the fault occurred.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 002 257)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 02-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to take steps to enforce the reinstatement of a cross field footpath after the landowner ploughed it. The Council is not at fault. The Council inspected the footpath and decided it was already reinstated to an acceptable standard.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 885)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 04-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has known since at least 2014 that a bridleway ran next to her property but continued to encourage vehicles to use it. We found there was fault in the Council's approach to Mrs X's complaints about the use of the bridleway. This fault stretches back as far as 2012 and has caused Mrs X significant injustice. The Ombudsman recommended how this should be remedied by the Council and it has agreed to do so.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 001 683)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 24-Jul-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council temporarily closed footpaths in his area. Mr B uses those footpaths daily and had to find alternative routes. The Ombudsman considers there is no significant injustice to warrant his involvement and has discontinued investigation. The impact on Mr B would be the same regardless of fault.

  • Isle of Wight Council (18 000 347)

    Statement Not upheld Rights of way 03-Jul-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman closed a complaint alleging the Council failed to remove two obstructions on a public footpath close to the complainant's home because no worthwhile outcome is achievable through investigation of the complaint now.

  • East Sussex County Council (17 014 511)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 27-Apr-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council obstructed and delayed the process of establishing whether a passageway near a property he owns was a right of way (RoW). There was fault by the Council when it advertised a footpath modification order in June 2016. That did not cause significant injustice to Mr B. There was no other fault by the Council.