Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s street cleaning and maintenance of part of the highway in her area, and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor significant personal injustice to her stemming from the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Miss X to make any personal injury claim to the Council’s insurers and, if required, to the courts. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives in a town in the Council’s area. She complains the Council:
1. is not properly cleaning the streets of litter and fallen leaves;
2. has not maintained a stretch of pavement in the centre of town;
3. failed to properly handle and respond to her complaint.
2. Miss X is upset that residents and visitors will see litter and leaves on the streets. She says she and others have fallen on the broken and worn pavement. Miss X is worried others will injure themselves there in future.

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.

(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 Miss X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. The Council responded to Miss X’s concerns about the street cleaning and condition of the pavement. It explained its cleaning scheme for the area involves a designated road sweeper and mechanical sweeper, operating every day. Officers advised they would continue to monitor the areas Miss X mentioned and try to give them particular attention when leaves fall. They said the pavement has been fixed temporarily several times because of utility companies’ works. Officers explained the companies will use the correct materials to reinstate the area when they become available. They said they inspect the pavement every month for any defects which require them to make repairs and none of their inspections had found such disrepair.
8. The Council has street cleaning in place to deal with litter. It has decided how best it can use its resources for this. The Council investigated and gathered relevant information to assess the condition of the pavement when deciding no repairs were required. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on these issues to warrant us investigating. We note Miss X considers the Council’s schemes are not sufficient. But it is for councils to decide how they can and should use their limited resources to provide these services. It is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there were Council fault here, we will not investigate. We understand Miss X may be annoyed and disappointed to see some rubbish in the town, particularly at weekends, and seasonal leaf litter. But Miss X is insufficiently more affected by these matters than any other resident or visitor to amount to a significant injustice. Her annoyance and disappointment does not amount to such a significant personal injustice to her to warrant us investigating.
10. We note Miss X says she has fallen on the stretch of pavement where she has reported disrepair. If she was uninjured from the fall, we would not consider this such a significant injustice to justify us investigating. We understand Miss X is worried others may be injured in future. Any incidents involving others would not be Miss X’s injustice and we cannot take into account as injustices future incidents which have not happened.
11. If Miss X was injured when she fell and considers disrepair of the Council’s pavement caused the incident, that would be a claim of personal injury against the Council. She would be claiming that her injuries were caused by Council negligence in not properly maintaining the pavement. We cannot decide claims of negligence and personal injury. It would be reasonable for Miss X to make a claim against the Council’s insurers or, if rejected, to the courts because only an insurer or the courts can decide such claims of legal liability for injury.
12. We recognise the main trigger for Miss X making her complaint to us was the Council’s complaint process. But she would not have contacted the Council had it not been for her concerns about litter and highway repairs, so those are the core complaint issues. We note Miss X did not appreciate the way the Council responded to her complaint, particularly its first response. But we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave 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

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to justify us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to her stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• it would be reasonable for her to make any personal injury claim to the Council’s insurers and, if required, to the courts; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman