Rights of way


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (16 011 812)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 15-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council has unreasonably restricted a resident's vehicular access along a lane in its area. This is because there is no sign of fault on its part regarding this matter.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 000 745)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 04-May-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's demand that his mother applies for a dropped kerb to access her driveway. 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 or his mother.

  • Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board (16 019 407)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 03-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B's complaint about the costs he has incurred following the Internal Drainage Board's decision to sell land. That is because Mr B has appealed to a tribunal and started court action against the current owners of the land.

  • London Borough of Hackney (16 016 276)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 09-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr K complains the way the Council's resurfaced a path means water does not drain away. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he has not seen any fault in how the Council decided to do this.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 015 618)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 17-Feb-2017

    Summary: Mr Z complains about the Council's response to his complaints about the condition of local footpaths. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he cannot see what more he can add to the Council's own investigation.

  • Slough Borough Council (16 014 094)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 24-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has refused his request for access to the rear of his home over Council land. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no indication of fault in the way the Council decided this. The Ombudsman cannot therefore question the Council's decision.

  • Durham County Council (16 006 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 05-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this matter further as Mr and Mrs X had an alternative remedy. They could have asked the tribunal to determine their claim to a prescriptive easement rather than continue to negotiate with the Council.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (16 007 984)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 21-Dec-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on Mr X's core complaint that the Council's footpath signs are illegal, as it is not within her powers to make findings on points of law. The other parts of Mr X's complaint did not cause him injustice which would warrant the Ombudsman's further involvement.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (16 011 162)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 28-Nov-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about a decision made by the Development Management Committee. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

  • Surrey County Council (16 000 225)

    Statement Upheld Rights of way 14-Nov-2016

    Summary: I uphold Mrs C's complaint about the Council's handling of her application to divert a public footpath. However, I am satisfied the Council's actions are sufficient to remedy the complaint.

;