Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s action in cutting back vegetation behind his property or about the annual one-day holiday event which is held close to him. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to respond to his complaint about the recent cutting back of vegetation behind his property and is dissatisfied with its response about the annual one-day holiday event it allows to take place close to his property which causes noise nuisance.

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 B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B’s property backs out on to a disused railway line now used as a trail path run by the Council for walking, cycling and horse-riding. He complained to the Council about its actions in cutting back vegetation within one meter of the path when it had previously said it would not do so. He also complained about an annual event held close to his property which leads to noise nuisance and about which he has not been consulted.
5. There was a delay in the Council responding to his complaint and when it did it referred to the cutting back of trees which had taken place two years ago rather than the recent cutting back of vegetation. It also explained that as the land on which the annual event is held is Council property, it did not need to consult with neighbouring residents. It did, however, advise that it would feed his comments about the noise levels back to the event’s organisers.
6. In responding to my query about the recent cutting back of vegetation, the Council has provided details about what work was carried out and about its aim in maintaining the openness of the trail for access, recreation and nature preservation purposes.

Assessment

7. The Council apologised to Mr B for the delay in responding to his complaint. When it did reply, it did not identify that Mr B had raised a new issue about the recent cutting back of vegetation. However, it has now explained the purpose of the work.
8. While I understand Mr B says he was led to believe such work would not take place close to the path, and is unhappy the Council has taken the action it did, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. Similarly, while I note he is disturbed by the annual event, the Council was not obliged to consult with him about holding it and, again, the Council’s actions and the level of Mr B’s injustice do not warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman