Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over a neighbour’s gateway into a public right of way. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take action against her neighbour who ahs created a gateway in the side of their property which opens onto an adopted driveway over which she has rights of access. She says that recent building work by her neighbour resulted in obstructions on the highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says her neighbour created a side gate into their garden which opens onto an accessway over which she has a right of way. The Council maintains the accessway as a public highway and has provided a handrail on the side to assist pedestrians on the sloped incline. She says her neighbour had building work recently which eld to the contractors parking and placing materials on the highway.
6. The Council inspected the site following her report but found no obstruction, presumably because the works had finished. Mrs X told the Council the gateway would not have received planning permission as it impacts on users of the access. The Council’s planning authority confirmed that the gateway does not require planning approval because it is not development which requires it.
7. The gateway opens inwards into the neighbour’s property and is situated on the other side of the handrail from the users’ perspective. The Council does not consider that there is any breach of highway legislation which would require it to take action against her neighbour.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over a neighbour’s gateway into a public right of way. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman