Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to follow the cleansing schedule for a major A road close to where he lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is failing to cleanse a major A road where he lives according to its published schedule.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• 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. I considered Mr X’s complaints to the Council and its responses to him. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. There is a major dual carriageway ‘A’ road in the area where Mr X lives. The Council says this road is manually litter picked fortnightly and mechanically swept every six weeks. However, it confirms it cannot litter pick the central reservation as often because of the need for lane closures due to safety reasons. It also says it is working on a plan to perform a litter pick and is liaising with the traffic and highways departments and will seek permission for the lane closure.
5. Mr X is not satisfied. He says if a lane needs to be temporarily closed every two weeks then that is what should happen.

Assessment

6. Mr X says the area has become an eyesore with health and safety implications. However, although Mr X may use the road, he does not live on it. Any potential impact from litter along the route is the same for all road users and is not personal to him.
7. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider complaints of maladministration and service failure causing injustice. We will not investigate matters without significant personal injustice caused by the alleged fault.
8. Mr X says his son injured his foot on a glass bottle on the grass verge. And he has had two punctures because of debris in the road. He can make a claim in on the Council’s insurance if he considers there has been financial loss or personal injury.
9. Also, while I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the level of cleansing, the Council has explained it is satisfied the verges and roads are cleansed and swept according to schedule. It has explained why the central reservation is not cleared as often and what it is doing to deal with this. It has considered Mr X’s concerns and explained why it is following its chosen course of action. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions. And we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significance personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman