Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the frequency of street cleansing in her road and the Council’s decision making regarding nearby trees on private land. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is not taking sufficient action to ensure the pavements near her home remain free from obstruction. She says the lack of action is discriminatory against people with disabilities and putting her family at risk. She wants the Council to require the landowner of a nearby property to cut back overgrown trees and increase the frequency of street cleansing to ensure the pavements remains free from obstruction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s policy says It will undertake appropriate maintenance work to Council-owned trees to ensure footpaths or pavements remain free from obstruction. Where it considers trees or vegetation located on private land are blocking the pavement or highway, it will write to the owner asking them to complete appropriate works to remove the obstruction. If the issue remains unresolved, the Council can complete the works and charge the landowner for the costs. The Council will not maintain trees on private land where the issue relates to blocked light, leaf fall, fallen fruit or blossom.
6. In its complaint responses, the Council said its street cleansing team followed a regular schedule which included her area. The Council confirmed Ms X’s street is included in its street cleansing schedule. It said residents can also make a service request for additional street cleaning as needed, through its website.
7. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. It is for the Council to decide the locations and frequency of street cleansing and we could not require it to increase visits to a particular street. The Council also has a system for residents to make additional service requests if needed. This is an appropriate way for Ms X to report any problems and to request additional cleansing visits if required.
8. The trees Ms X complains about are on private land. She says the trees drop large amounts of vegetation onto the pavement which causes a hazard, particularly for those with disabilities. The Council has appropriately considered her complaint but does not consider the trees are obstructing the pavement or highway and so does not agree action is needed. Its decision appears in line with its policy, so it is unlikely an investigation would find fault. I accept Ms X disagrees with the decision, but this is the Council’s decision to make.
9. Ms X says the Council’s refusal to act is discriminatory against those with disabilities, but I have seen no evidence of this. The Council has a duty to maintain the highways in its area for all users and must use the resources it has in the way it considers most effective. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman