Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not maintaining an area of land which he says it is responsible for and the Council closing the reports he makes without taking appropriate action. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant personal injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not maintaining area of land which he says it is responsible for. He also complains the Council is closing the reports he makes without taking appropriate action.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised numerous reports and concerns about lack of maintenance to an area of land which he believes the Council to be responsible for. He has also reported fly-tipping in the area.
6. The Council explained in its complaint response that the ownership of land in question is not straightforward. The Council said the bridge is not owned or adopted by the Council. Therefore, the Council has no responsibility to maintain it. The two approaches leading to the bridge are owned by the Council, however they have not been adopted.
7. The Council further explained it does not normally maintain unadopted land and therefore the location was not part of its waste contractors maintenance or street sweeping schedule. However, the Council’s ground maintenance team did agree to add the location to its cyclical maintenance on a temporary basis while it explored with a third party their maintenance responsibilities for the location.
8. An investigation is not justified because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice. There is no evidence the issues complained about have caused him any harm or put him at risk of harm. Further, the area in question where the fly tipping is occurring is around a mile away from where Mr X lives and so he is not directly impacted by the issues complained about.
9. Mr X clarified the bridge, and approaches, are near to where he lives. He said he must walk past the area several times a day. I acknowledge that the matter is likely causing Mr X some frustration and inconvenience. However, this is not significant enough to justify our involvement given our limited resources.
10. In addition, we are not likely to find fault as the Council has explained why it is not responsible for the maintenance of the land.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused any significant personal injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman