Summary: Mr X complains a Council report, used as a basis to recommend an order to modify the line of a public footpath, was flawed. Mr X says the modification has resulted in a substantial devaluation of his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he can achieve no meaningful outcome for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council report, which recommended an order to modify the definitive map, lacked impartiality and used flawed and discredited evidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe that was another body better placed to consider this complaint or we can achieve no meaningful outcome for the complainant (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint, the Council’s complaint responses to Mr X and its report of October 2018. I have considered the comments Mr X made in response to my draft decision on the complaint, which I sent to him.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council received an application to modify the definitive map, by way of amending the line of part of a public footpath. This modification would put the footpath within Mr X’s property.
5. The Could produced a report concluding there was evidence to support the application. On this basis, an order was made to modify the definitive map.
6. Mr X complains the Council’s report lacked impartiality and used flawed and discredited evidence. Mr X says the Council’s own insurers had previously concluded there was no error on the definitive map. Mr X wants an enquiry into the failings of the Council’s report.
7. The Council made the order to modify the definitive map in September 2019 and it was confirmed in December 2019, after no objections to it had been received.
8. Mr X complains the modification has significantly devalued his home.

Assessment

9. The Council made the order to modify the definitive map under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Once an order is made, if objections are received, the order is passed to the Secretary of State for determination.
10. Mr X says he did not object as the Council told him any objection would be likely to be unsuccessful.
11. We will not investigate as the correct way to challenge the order would have been to object to it, notwithstanding what the Council’s view was on the potential success of any objection.
12. The order is now confirmed and we can have no impact on this or achieve any other meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. My decision is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint as we can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X and this complaint was better dealt with by way of objecting to the order and so bringing about consideration by the Secretary of State.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman