Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council promoting a walking route which said an access track to the complainant’s property was a public right of way. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it has taken satisfactory action to address the complainant’s concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the District Council promoted a walking route which incorrectly identified the track to her home as a public right of way.
2. Mrs X says her family have faced verbal and physical abuse from members of the public trying to use the track. She would like the District Council to issue a retraction of the material, and to put up signage informing users that they cannot use the private track.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

4. And we cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I can understand why Mrs X is unhappy that her track was included in the walking route.
8. But, with reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 above, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the District Council, it has taken satisfactory action in response to Mrs X's concerns, and another body is responsible for matters related to rights of way. In reaching this decision, I am mindful that:
• The suggested walking route, and associated leaflet, were created by an organisation which does not form part of the District Council. It was therefore not responsible for including Mrs X’s track in the route.
• The District Council did not print or distribute any leaflets detailing the walk.
• The District Council’s website did include a link to/details of the walk, but this was removed in September 2021. It was later discovered that a PDF version could still be found via search engines, so the District Council removed this too in October 2022.
• The County Council is responsible for the management and status of public rights of way. I understand Mrs X has corresponded with that body, and it is open to her to pursue a formal complaint if she is unhappy with its response to her concerns. The District Council is therefore not responsible for determining rights of way or erecting associated signage, so the Ombudsman could not ask it to provide the outcome Mrs X is seeking here.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the District Council, and it took satisfactory action when concerns were raised about the material on its website.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman