The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s maintained its definitive map. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council maintained its definitive map which shows public rights of way (PROWs). He said the Council failed to acknowledge his PROW applications and had not kept accurate records of previous applications it had received. He said the Council then delayed deciding whether to add PROWs to the definitive map. He also questioned decisions the Council’s Committee had historically made about recording PROWs on private estates.
Mr X said he had spent a significant amount of time researching lost rights of way. He said he had no confidence in the Council dealing with his applications.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council maintains the definitive map for the following reasons: We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. I do not consider the Council’s potential failings in how it has considered Mr X’s PROW applications to the definitive maps, have caused him a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
In the Council’s complaint response to Mr X, it explained that any decisions on adding PROWs to the definitive needed to be properly investigated. It said this took time. Although Mr X is unhappy about that potential length of time, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
Mr X has acknowledged that since his complaint the Council has updated its PROW register. This information is available on its website. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.
Part of Mr X’s complaint relate to matters that occurred more than twelve months ago. That includes decisions the Council made about the recording of PROWs in private estates. We expect a person to come to us within twelve months of what the Council has done. Therefore, these complaints are late.
In any event, the Council confirmed it has passed comments Mr X had made around private estates to its Legal Department. The Council has taken appropriate steps to address his concerns. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is nothing to suggest the Council’s actions have caused a significant injustice and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman