Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deciding after many months not to do works to protect damaged grass verges on his road. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. We do not investigate council complaint-handling and communications where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a street with grass verges next to the road, including one in front of his house. Mr X complains the Council has promised him for two years that it would fix the issue of drivers parking vehicles on the verges and damaging them but has not, and has now advised him other residents do not want the issue resolved.
2. Mr X says vehicles drag slippery mud on to pavements which gets spread on to his property. He says some cars block pedestrian access. Mr X says he is disgusted at the state of the verges, the matter has caused him stress and anxiety, he has spent time pursuing the matter with the Council for two years and feels he does not want to live there anymore. Mr X wants the Council to install rails to protect the verges or to tarmac them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. Mr X contacted the Council and elected Councillors about the damaged verges and the cars parking on them. Officers and the Councillors gathered information and considered the matter for many months before the Councillors proposed canvasing residents on whether the verges should be protected. The majority of residents did not want that work done.
8. The decision not to do work to the verges took a long time, but officers took account of relevant information from all interested parties when making their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to warrant investigation. We recognise Mr X disagrees with it. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there had been fault in the Council’s core decision about works to the verge, we would not investigate. Mr X bought his house when neighbours and other drivers had already been using verges to park, including the one at the front of his property, for many years. It was Mr X’s decision to buy his property which brought the issues he complains about into his everyday experience. We understand Mr X is annoyed when verge mud gets on to his driveway, and that he does not like the sight of the verges. But verge damage was there when he bought the property, and the impact of the mud and the sight of the verges does not amount to such a significant personal injustice to him to warrant an investigation.
10. The outcome Mr X wants is for the Council to protect the grass verges or remove them. We cannot order councils to use their budgets on specific works. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate. In any event, we note the Council has offered to put protective works to the verge outside Mr X’s property on its list for the next financial year. There is no different outcome an investigation by us would achieve here than this offer by the Council. If Mr X requests this work, it will remain a decision for officers to make to determine how they prioritise this and all other works on their list.
11. The Council’s complaint-handling and contacts with Mr X involved delayed responses and required him to chase some of those replies. But we do not investigate complaint handling or communications in isolation where we are not investigating core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks; and
• an investigation would not achieve a different outcome; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling and communications where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman