Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway verge cuttings not being cleared after cutting. This is because there is no evidence of a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not uphold his complaint about highway verge cuttings not being cleared away.
2. Mr X says the cuttings worsen his hay fever and pose a risk of injury to his dog.

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 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:

• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council’s contractors blow grass cuttings, leaves, seeds towards residential properties and on to the pavement. He is concerned the debris aggravate his breathing problems and grass seeds may lodge in his dog’s ear, nose or paws.
7. The Council has responded to Mr X. It says it is responsible for maintaining 12 million square metres of verges and carries out five annual cuts. It says it cannot justify the cost of removing cuttings. It adds that street sweeping is the responsibility of the local council.
8. We will not investigate as I have not seen evidence of a demonstrable personal injustice to warrant the use of public resources for an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because I have not seen evidence of a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman