It does if you apply Ombudsman logic.
The road (carriageway) adjacent to my property should have been constructed 3.8 metres from my boundary. (Official approved and bonded plans prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.) The County Council are on record stating that the road has been constructed 0.7 metres closer to my boundary than it should be. (Council plans and surveys also prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.) That clearly proves that the road is now only 3.1 metres from my boundary or conversely my boundary is only 3.1 metres from the edge of the road.
However, in spite of Council plans and statements proving the position of my boundary beyond a shadow of doubt the Ombudsman is still trying to argue that my boundary is between 3.5 to 3.8 metres from the road.
Why does the Ombudsman's office use warped logic? Because they always reach a decision first and then manipulate the facts to support their decision.
So if, 3.1 equals maladministration and 3.5 to 3.8 equals no maladministration then their only option, if they want to bury the maladministration, is to argue that 3.8 - 0.7 = 3.5 to 3.8.