Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Council delay in clearing glass from near her property. There was Council delay but there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. If Miss X considers the Council is responsible for damage to her car from the glass, that is a legal liability claim we cannot determine. It would be reasonable for her to pursue that claim with Council insurers and to the courts if required.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives with her family with a grassed area next to a pavement and the road. The grass is owned and maintained by the Council. She complains the Council delayed in clearing broken glass from the area.
2. Miss X says her daughter fell on the glass and got some in her hand. She says her daughter could not play on the grass and that it was a risk to her dog. Miss X says one of her neighbour’s dogs was injured by the glass. She says some glass on the road damaged her car’s tyres. Miss X says she has spent time and been caused trouble from having to report and further pursue the matter when the glass was not cleared as expected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss X, sought further information about her claimed injustice, and considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts it delayed in dealing with Miss X’s report about the glass on the highway and grassed area. When an officer put the report on their scheduling system, it was described as glass on the road and pavement, so the Council sent a mechanical road sweeper. This meant glass on the grassed area was not removed until later by other staff. The Council said in June it would remove the glass and has advised officers to make sure reports received by one department which are the responsibility of another department are logged without delay.
7. There was fault by the Council here which led to delay in the glass being cleared from all areas. We do not investigate all incidents where there has been council fault. That fault must then directly cause a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating, so we have considered that injustice.
8. We note Miss X says her daughter could not play on the grass for some time, but this would be insufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating. Miss X says her daughter fell on the glass and got some in her hand. She did not send further information about the treatment her daughter’s injury required and the date it happened when we requested this. That Miss X understandably stopped her daughter from playing on the grass indicates she did this after the injury had happened and close to the date she first reported the glass to the Council. Therefore, on balance, the Council’s fault in delaying clearing the glass after Miss X reported it was not the cause of her daughter’s injury. While councils routinely clean their land, they cannot know about the appearance of all incidents of litter until they are reported.
9. We understand Miss X also says the glass was a risk to her dog and that one of her neighbour’s dogs was injured by it. We cannot consider injuries to Miss X’s dog as an injustice where none has occurred. The injury to the neighbour’s dog is not an injustice to Miss X.
10. We recognise Miss X spent time and was caused inconvenience by having to report the matters to the Council on several occasions. But this time and trouble to her, or the other reported injustices here, do not amount to a sufficiently significant injustice which warrants us investigating.
11. Miss X says some glass on the road damaged her car tyres. If she believes the Council was liable for any damage to her tyres, this would be a claim of personal property damage. We cannot make findings on whether a council is legally liable for such damage. If Miss X wants to pursue this claimed impact, she may wish to make a claim to the Council’s insurers first. If she does not agree with the claim’s outcome, she can take the matter to the courts. It is reasonable for Miss X to pursue this part of the complaint through this route because only insurers and the courts can make decisions about legal liability for property damage.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• it would be reasonable for her to pursue any legal liability claim regarding damage to her car with Council insurers and the courts as required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman