UKC

Who fixes stiles when they are missing or damaged?

 I presume it is the landowner but if it's a farmer who doesn't respect someone's rights in this matter he won't be tempted to fix it too quickly. Then again footpath users will just climb over his locked gates so maybe I am incorrect in this assumption.

Many of the Public Footpaths where I live are not looked after. The Council used to have dedicated footpath persons who would sort this out but because of funding cuts these are long gone. A number of the paths are impassable because the stiles are gone and the adjacent fencing is too rickety and barbed wire covered to climb.

What's an old rambler to do in this situation? Fix them himself?

It looks as though they get reported here - hopefully, that'd help:

https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-probl...

There should still be a way to report the right of way / landowner to the council... They may well not do anything about it and come up with some lame excuse about having written to the landowner or something, but it is still an area they are responsible for enforcing even if they no longer have a dedicated rights of way officer.

As well as the ramblers there may be a local footpath society that might help with contacting the council? 

If you live in a National Park it is the responsibility of the National Park.

If you live elsewhere it is normally your council.  But upkeep/repair can vary enormously.

That looks a good place to start. Thank you. Also thanks for other responses.

I wondered this but while out walking last summer and using a stile that had seen better days, it was explained to me by someone (whose job was directly related to this) that if it is a public right of way it is the responsibility of the highways department, which is a function of the county/borough council. They have a legal responsibility 

The same issue if a landowner obstructs a right of way, enforcement is the responsibility of the highways officer, so blocked paths contact the highways dept of the council. Again the council is legally responsible

Not saying it is easy, some councils (e.g. Rhondda Cynon Taf) have a terrible reputation for just ignoring people until they get chased with solicitor letters and then it takes a year or so to actually look at it.

The council is legally obligated, but you might need to remind them of this

Maybe repost on UKH in case anyone in the same area is pursuing it?

Frankly, nearly all stiles should be replaced by metal swing gates or other alternatives that last longer and don't restrict access as much for those with hip or other mobility problems. 

I always thought the landowner, not the council, was responsible for keeping styles and gates in good condition?

Which is why they gend to get blocked or broken as the farmer knows the council doesn't have the money (or a Rights of Way Officer) to force him to comply.

quite a contrast to the situation approaching Great Strickland from the East on one of the paths from Melkinthorpe!

I make a point of climbing a stile in the last field.  This stile has been preserved by the farmer even though the entire fence or wall to which the stile belonged has been removed apart from that stile, now free standing in the middle of a field!

No idea where you are but in Derbyshire there is specific website from the County Council where you can log problems on RoW. A month or so ago there was a tree down over a local bridleway which is relatively well know fun MTB descent. I logged it on the site, got an automatic email saying it was logged and would be dealt with, a couple of weeks later I got an update email (actually) in someone's name saying the tree was now cleared. I rode the path a few days later and the tree had been chainsawed up and cleared away. Pretty impressed. Might be worth if there is something similar in your county.

Depends if it's a permissive path or PRoW. I was walking in the Moelwynion at the time and had thought the national parks were responsible for PRoW stiles but he corrected me. Have to say apart from the sad one that started the conversation the majority of the Moelwyn ones were in admirable condition. Some councils like Gwynedd obviously work harder on this than some others

sorry, from the West!

I've had briefings from national parks on this as a BMC volunteer. The situation varies from National Park (NP) to NP: most do look after stiles on PRoWs but some don't.

Funding for NPs is a big worry...they haven't had inflation rises for some time since the austerity cuts so real term funding has declined further and real cuts seem likely this year, at least for some NPs. People need to start campaigning on this, especially in Wales (as there is more chance of change).

I've done more walking away from the honeypots in North Wales in the last few years than in all my previous decades: rural PRoW maintenance there is on average by far the worst I've ever seen.... much worse than on the mountains.

Upkeep and safety of stiles legally rests with the landowner  but the local highways authority, National Park (or  possibly parish council) will often take over effective maintenance/replacement , particularly if they've helped install them (and hopefully without a stile if possible).  So the landowners could be liable if you hurt yourself due to a faulty stile but you should really be able to report what is in effect an illegal  obstruction to the local authority (do they have an enforcement officer?) and if nothing is done they can be compelled to act.  Otherwise as suggested above report to the Ramblers. (and/or Local Access Forum?) 

Thanks to all for the good advice.

Just been for a run on a series of footpaths I use. All PROW. About 40% of the stiles are either missing or unusable. 

One PROW has a newly erected Public Footpath sign. On the wooden post of the sign there is an official notice detailing how it is a criminal offence to damage or remove the sign. The actual footpath is blocked by a barbed wire fence and a big red sign saying KEEP OUT!    I wonder what the story behind all that is?

Perhaps depends on the local council. I've had success in righting a wrong when a path was deliberately blocked. Informed the council (they have a great web page for the purpose including inter-active map) and the officer came out next day and immediately began the process of contacting the perpetrator and getting it unblocked. She's now working on another blocked path I found. That's our town council. Some local paths are under County Council jurisdiction - they have an on-line means of reporting but are not nearly as good at acknowledging or reporting progress. 
The town council officer told me in the 12 years she's been in the job their budget has gone from £75,000 to £15,000. A stile costs them  from £80 to £150.

The national parks do good work and BMC also (appreciation to all concerned) but the legal onus to remove obstructions and to make sure stiles etc are maintained is the local authority. A bit of research... the landowner might have to maintain stiles and gates with 25% funding from the local authority (but if they don't it might be an obstruction and the local authority can step in and do it and bill the landowner 75% of the cost). Also deliberately blocking a PRoW is a criminal offence (Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980) and enforcement is back to the council I think not the police under the local authorities act (not sure?) If it is a highway (road) rather than a byeway (path) that is blocked I think in theory you can phone the police to report a crime and they are obliged to record that, but I wouldn't like to try it! Fat chance they'd help.

 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-local-authority-responsibi...

That's not correct...some NPs have fully delegated responsibility for maintaining PRoWs.... Yorkshire Dales is just one example:

https://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/rights-of-way-agreement-signed-with-lanca...

Hi Tom, PNFS inspector here. To clarify: it is the duty of the landowner to keep stiles (and every other aspect of a PRoW running across their land) in good repair. The LA has a duty to ensure compliance.

The highway authority have responsibility for the maintenance /condition of the surface (ownership of which is vested in them) whilst the landowner is responsible for structures and ensuring vegetation etc does not encroach from the sides or above - and they must not obstruct or damage the surface of the PROW. 

All summarised here: 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-local-authority-responsibi...

Aye, I quickly discovered during lockdown that trying to follow PRoWs for more than a couple kilometres out of town was often a nightmare (Conwy/Llandudno area). One 10k “run” ended up taking 2.5 hours because so many sections of the rights of way were either impassible or impossible to find. A couple of times I ended up climbing over barbed wire or through hedges to wade along stream beds as the path of least resistance.

Not quite; I'm afraid it's (a lot) more complicated than that... You'll notice that the gov.uk guidelines you linked to - which are basically a very simplified set of interpretations - don't say that, but say:

"The highway authority must keep the surface of public rights of way which are maintained at public expense in a fit state for public use".

The key phrase here is "which are maintained at public expense". Most urban PRoWs are but then the LA is also the landowner in most cases. Countryside PRoWs more often aren't. Without going into sadistic detail, a lot of this stuff is actually quite relevant to a recent thread on Green Lanes: whilst they might be BOATs, highway authorities have no duty to surface them for such traffic in the sense that readers might assume from the gov.uk guidelines. You can no doubt see contemporary pros or cons, or indeed both to this situation, but it has its origins in an amendment to the to my mind undesirable situation in the 19th century wherein landowners could decide a route across their land was a highway and that the public should have to pay for it. 

I may have - in fact I'm sure I have - strayed into sadistic territory.

Is now a good time to ask about the situation with regards pedestrian access rights to an “unclassified numbered road” shown on the council highway map where it is noted as “unsuitable for vehicle traffic”, but one end of which is maintained in tarmac by the council, and which is *not* a BOAT?

As far as I can tell, these are roads with legal access rights that the council have chosen not to maintain.  It turns out a fair few farms out my way have this designation on their access tracks, some of which open new walking routes if public access exists…

Your timing is perfect. But knowing roughly where these must be and which LA they're in, I know that I won't have sufficient access to the kinds of records needed to determine status (via the LA or PNFS - pretty certain you're not within a PNFS area, Wintertree).

If you want to email me locations I'll have a go though: it sounds interesting!

You have a right of way, the stile is to facilitate the fence, not the right of way.

I apologise, to labour the point, but you have the right of way, the land owner, has no right to obstruct with a fence.

N Wales was a real shock to me.... I was previously used to OK to good quality PRoWs on farmland, with just an occasional landowner being an arse.

We had a few amusing H&S blockages in Notts recently on Council approved works. Two with major digging for water improvements with impressive security fences that needed good tactics to flank and two wooden bridges over dumbles that were officially unusable but turned out to have just lost a single slat to rot!

We used to roam wild as kids, so my skill needs for  'occasional' 'accidental' trespass on access work was well trained in. Increasingly, I'm walking with people with some mobility issues so have come to realise just how important PRoW furniture and maintenance is. Another big frustration everywhere is how many PRoWs just end on busy roads with no verge path....often verge improvements to the next ProW, a small new path or an existing section of farm track could link up an otherwise effectively  ' dead end' (for most) PRoWs,  giving major network improvements.

Yes, I agree don't go there! I avoided  quoting sections of the Blue Bible  but you're right, I used 'responsibility' a little lazily,  and  .GOV is very simplified  - I drafted  that section and we were told to keep it simple! 

Heh! We might be wrong, and in a few minutes' time a whole legion of commenters will come along to say they're dying to hear about the fascinating legislative history of PRoWs...

It's a fine balance, and I reckon your draft gets it right. Most people will never need to know more than that. But I find it interesting how, in cases where you do need to know more, a little bit more is never enough (for example, I know straight away that the situation Wintertree describes above is going to require some quite arcane archive & historical map-reading skills, and is bound to involve working out what the status quo was in 1980, and then in 1959, and then...)