The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right of way. This is because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council has failed to follow the legal process in a request to change a right of way on the Definitive Map.
Mr Y says this has meant he is unable to use larger vehicles, such as tractors or cars with trailers to access his farmland, leading to significant inconvenience.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The law sets out how people may apply to their council for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to have a public right of way recorded on the definitive map. Once the Council has a properly made DMMO application, it should “as soon as reasonably practicable” decide whether to make an order. If the Council makes an Order, it must advertise it. This allows for people to make objections against the Order.
If no objections are made, the Council can decide to confirm the order itself. However, if objections are made to the order, the Council must refer the order to the secretary of state or minister for confirmation. This means that an inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate will decide whether to confirm the order on the basis of a public inquiry, hearing or an exchange of written representations.
An DMMO application was made to the Council initially in 2004. The Council agreed to make an Order in 2008, however, before it did, a different case was decided in 2011 by the Planning Inspectorate, using some of the same evidence relied on for the 2004 application. This decided there was no public right of way over the land. The Council then decided that as the land had been decided on by the Planning Inspectorate, it would not make the Order as this would be contrary to the 2011 decision.
Mr Y has helped other residents to make two further DMMO applications in 2021 and again in 2024. The application in 2024 failed on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate as the process had not been followed correctly by the applicant Mr Y was assisting. A further application was submitted in January 2026 as a result.
Mr Y has written to the Council several times about the matter, including in 2022, 2024, 2025 and in 2026. In his complaint letter in 2024 to the Council, Mr Y described his complaints as a delay of 17 years in making the Definitive Map Modification Order, failure to follow legal procedures or law as well as other issues surrounding its handling of the DMMO application and an Order not being made.
Mr Y approached us in January 2026. Since this date Mr Y has been able to obtain evidence of guidance issued to councils which he says meant it could not use previous cases from the Planning Inspectorate as precedents for other DMMO applications. He says this is why he believes the matter is in time, as he has only been able to specify the failure to follow this guidance more recently.
The law says people should normally complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after someone becomes aware of something a council has done are considered late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
We do not require people who complain to us to be able to provide evidence of the fault complained about, or be able to specify exactly which legislation or guidance may not have been followed.
Mr Y’s was aware of his reason to complain about the Council’s actions when the Order agreed in 2008 was not made. This is significantly more than 12 months ago.
He was also aware of his reason to complain when he felt the correct process had not being followed by the Council, which he was aware of in 2024 when he complained to the Council about the issue. Consequently, his complaint is now late.
We have discretion to disapply the rule outlined in paragraph four where we decide there are good reasons. Mr Y did not need to provide evidence of the issue to complain to us. Therefore, he has not provided any good reasons why he did not bring his complaint to us within 12 months of knowing about the matter. It is reasonable to expect him to have complained sooner and we will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman