Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right of way because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr y complained the Council failed to act when the alignment of a local right of way was altered.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him frustration as he helped to have the right of way added to the Definitive Map several years ago and has reduced his enjoyment of the path.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
7. In this instance Mr Y reported the issue to the Council and provided photographs as evidence to support his complaint. The Council considered the evidence provided but has not found that the path has been moved in the way Mr Y has suggested to allow for the higher water level in the lake next to the path. It has further said that even if it were to find the deviation Mr Y has complained about along the footpath, it would not consider this so significant as to carry out enforcement work to have the footpath re-aligned, due to the lack of impact it believes the change, if it has occurred, has on the use of the right of way.
8. As the Council has considered the evidence, considered relevant factors such as the significance of any change which may have occurred and been able to explain its rationale for not taking action, based on its professional experience and expertise, we would not say there was fault in the way the Council has made the decision not to act. Consequently, we would not find fault in its lack of any enforcement action against the landowner, relating to the issue Mr Y has raised. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman