Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not taken appropriate action to address his neighbour’s spraying of a glyphosate herbicide on public land. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action to address his neighbour’s spraying of a glyphosate herbicide on public land which runs alongside his neighbour’s fence. He says the Council should send the neighbour a targeted letter in the form he has suggested because of the danger the use of such a herbicide can cause.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X contacted the Council to report that a neighbour had sprayed a glyphosate herbicide along the edge of his own fence which had led to damage to public land running alongside the fence. He asked the Council to take into account previous deliberate damage to trees in the same area and the health and safety implications of the use of the herbicide. He asked the Council to send a letter to the neighbour warning them that legal action may be taken against them if further damage occurs.
5. The Council responded by explaining the Government has not banned products containing glyphosate and that the use of pesticides is regulated by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Health and Safety Executive.
6. It also explained a local authority does not have regulatory powers in relation to health and safety breaches on any highways or on land owned or managed by a local authority and that offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are investigated by the police.
7. Unhappy with the response, Mr X contacted the Council again because he wanted it to send his neighbour a letter warning them not to cause further damage and that legal action could be taken against them. In reply, the Council advised Mr X it was prohibited from becoming involved as health and safety on council land and highways is a matter for central regulation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). It confirmed a report had been made to the police to inform them of damage caused by the neighbour.
8. The Council has now advised that the police have decided to take no further action. It has also advised that it has written to residents in the area to say it is aware that deliberate damage has been caused to trees and shrubs on Council owned land and that anyone found causing damage may have legal proceedings taken against them. It has invited any resident with information about the deliberate damage to get in touch.

Assessment

9. The Council has explained it has no enforcement powers in relation to the matters Mr X has raised and that other bodies are responsible for pursuing any action.
10. It has, however, acted on his concerns by sending out letters to residents in the area and inviting anyone with further information to get in touch. If Mr X has any further evidence he can provide this to the Council or the police.
11. Mr X has said that while he welcomed letters being sent to residents generally, he wanted his neighbour to be sent a targeted letter. However, the form and nature of the letters sent are matters for the Council and not the Ombudsman to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman