Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s vegetation-cutting contractor not warning the complainant about works outside his property. We do not consider any injustice is significant enough to justify our involvement and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise his concerns with more suitable bodies.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains about a hazardous incident that occurred outside his property during vegetation cutting by the Council’s contractors. He says he was nearly struck by a flying branch travelling at the speed of a bullet. He says he was left shaken and distressed.
2. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s responses to his concerns and its failure to provide key documents such as the contractor’s risk assessment.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I note Mr X was left shaken and distressed however there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice arising to warrant an investigation.
8. Mr X says he was forced to clean his car of the vegetation debris and take it to the garage to check for damage to the paintwork.
9. Mr X has not reported any damage to his vehicle. If he did this would be a matter for insurers/the courts and not the Ombudsman.
10. Further investigation would not be able to establish if the contractor did send notices as claimed by the contractor to Mr X and his neighbours. I note the Council says, in its defence, that only Mr X’s car was parked near the works being carried out.
11. Mr X considers the Council has withheld documents from him. He can raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office which is better placed to look at information rights matters.
12. Also, as Mr X considers his complaint raises issues of public safety, he can raise this with the Health and Safety Executive which is better placed to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise his concerns with more suitable bodies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman