Highway adoption


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Leeds City Council (17 002 550)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council using incorrect records to claim the extent of the adopted highway in a nearby street. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of any fault on the Council's part which has caused injustice to Mr X.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (16 000 004)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 30-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has included development sites in its local plan which may allow development on a village green and may not act properly in the future when considering planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no indication that Mr Y is caused a significant personal injustice or that this is a significant public interest matter.

  • Durham County Council (16 005 672)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 10-Nov-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to accept that a lane is an adopted highway. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to justify her becoming involved.

  • East Sussex County Council (15 016 173)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 31-Aug-2016

    Summary: There is no or insufficient evidence the Council acted with fault in its design or location of a pedestrian footway outside the complainant's home. It has responded suitably to specific concerns raised by the complainant about land ownership, construction of the footway and drainage issues post-construction.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 003 317)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 30-Jun-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the adoption of a highway as it is outside her jurisdiction because it was not made to her in time.

  • Surrey County Council (15 019 762)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 11-Apr-2016

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has not adopted a private road and is a party to a planning agreement which is to the detriment of owners on the estate. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as the Council is not at fault.

  • Mendip District Council (15 008 498)

    Statement Upheld Highway adoption 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: I uphold Mr C's highways complaint as there was fault by the Council. However, I do not consider it caused Mr C an injustice which would need the Council to take further action.

  • Pendle Borough Council (14 018 539)

    Statement Upheld Highway adoption 05-Feb-2016

    Summary: There was fault by the Borough Council in the way it failed to use its powers properly to ensure a new road on a housing estate was built to a standard the Highways Authority requires to adopt and maintain it at public expense. The Borough Council has suggested a possible remedy which is acceptable to the Ombudsman.

  • Lancashire County Council (15 003 889)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 01-Feb-2016

    Summary: There was no fault by the County Council in the way it used its powers as a Highways Authority in dealing with the road on a housing estate.

  • Coventry City Council (15 013 772)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 22-Dec-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the construction of a pavement crossover as she is unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions.

;