Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about works to a verge outside his home. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to reduce the height and angle of a verge next to his home. Mr X is worried this could lead to damage to his property. The Council accepts its staff previously damaged a wall belonging to Mr X when mowing the verge. The Council offered to pay for the damage, and it says the verge does not require any remedial work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X has previously complained to the Council and the Ombudsman about the verge outside his house.
6. In 2015, the Ombudsman said we would not investigate a complaint about the height of the verge. This was because the Council said it was due to carry out remedial work to the verge. The Ombudsman said an investigation could not achieve anything more for Mr X.
7. Mr X says he did not receive the Ombudsman’s decision and claims the Council has not carried out the work it had agreed to do. The Council says it has carried out two sets of remedial work and the verge is as it should be. The Council has considered claims from Mr X that equipment used to mow the verge damaged his property. It offered to repair the damage.
8. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. Mr X says he did not receive the Ombudsman’s decision in 2015. But I see no reason why he could not have contacted the Council or the Ombudsman about the outstanding work much earlier. The exception at paragraph 3 therefore applies to Mr X’s complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the points I make below.
9. There is a clear difference of opinion between Mr X and the Council. Mr X believes extra work is needed; the Council says the work has already been carried out and there are no issues with the verge. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. On balance, I do not think there is enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to its response.
10. The Council accepts its contractors have previously damaged Mr X’s wall when mowing the verge. It offered to pay for repairs, but Mr X arranged his own remedial work. Mr X says the angle of the verge could cause further problems when it is mowed. But the Ombudsman does not consider complaints about what might happen – we cannot consider speculative injustice. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman