Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to restore an area of the grass verge outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has damaged an area of the grass verge outside her home by spraying weed killer. She wants the Council to reduce the spraying and repair the grass.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I looked at images of the verge, since 2008, on google maps. I considered the weed killing policy and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Weed killing

4. The Council does not treat weeds on roads and pavements. Spraying is carried out by district and borough councils.

What happened

5. Ms X says an area of the grass verge, outside her home, is damaged every year by excessive spraying of weed killer. On two occasions she has dug and reseeded the area.
6. Ms X complained to the Council. She asked it to reduce the spraying and repair the grass.
7. In response the Council said it does not spray weeds. It invited her to complain to the district council. It said that google maps showed there is a history of this section of the verge dying and then recovering. It said that the issue was not a high enough priority to justify spending money, from its limited budget, on restoring the area.
8. Ms X disagrees with the response. She maintains that weed killer has caused the damage. She also says the district council said the spraying was done by the Council.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council does not spray weeds because that is carried out by district and borough councils. In addition, it has not been established that weed killer is responsible. I have looked at images since 2008. These show that exactly the same section of grass repeatedly becomes discoloured and then recovers. If the problem was caused by spraying then I would expect the discolouration to be more scattered and less uniform.
11. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The grass is on the verge and is hidden from view from the house by a hedge and a wall. The discoloured area is relatively small. Ms X will see the damaged area when she leaves and enters her home but this does not represent a degree of injustice which requires an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman