Broxbourne Borough Council (19 003 942)
Category : Environment and regulation > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 01 Aug 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to cut the highway verge or reimburse him for cutting it himself over past years. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains that the Council has allowed him to cut the highway grass verge at his own expense for several years. He says it should reimburse him for his work and that it should allow him to obtain the highway land by adverse possession.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
- it is unlikely we would find fault, or
- it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
- it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.
What I found
- Mr X says he has been cutting the grass verge outside his home for several years. The Council told him that the land belongs to the highway authority, which is the County Council and that it cuts the highway grass on an agency basis. In the past the Council has not cut the grass where residents have maintained it themselves to a higher standard. The Council only cuts the grass at regular intervals and it does not collect the cuttings.
- Mr X says he should be repaid for his past efforts and that he has maintained it long enough for the Council to recognize his adverse possession. The Council told Mr X that it does not own the land but only has a contract to maintain it for the highway authority. It says the County Council no longer issues licences for others to maintain the verges so it will in future cut it to its contractual standard. It cannot compensate residents for deciding to cut the grass in the past to their own standards.
- Mr X chose to cut the verge using his own equipment. The Council has the maintenance contract and it can decide when the grass should be cut. Mr X cannot claim the grass from the Council because it does not own the land, this belongs to the highway authority.
- If Mr X wishes to challenge ownership of the land, he would need to make a legal claim against the highway authority. This is not a matter which the Ombudsman could decide.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman