Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s grass cutting schedule. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response, and Mr Y has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s grass cutting schedule. He says the grass across from his home has not been getting regularly cut.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about the grass across from his home. He raised concerns about the frequency of which the grass was being cut, and the level of service being provided by the Council’s contractor. The Council investigated his complaint and was satisfied that its contractor had cut the grass on dates that Mr Y disputed. I understand Mr Y disagrees with the Council’s decision, but it is not for the Ombudsman to question whether a decision was right or wrong. I am satisfied the Council followed correct processes to reach its decision.
8. Mr Y also complained about the grass cutting schedule. He said the grass was not being cut frequently enough and asked the Council to explain how often the grass should be cut. The Council acknowledged there had been irregularities with its grass cutting schedule during the 2025 season. It accepted there had been scheduling errors. The Council apologised and reviewed its procedure. It said that from the 2026 season, the grass would be cut every 15 days, weather permitting.
9. I am satisfied the Council investigated Mr Y’s complaint properly. It demonstrated good complaint handling and responded appropriately to acknowledge the identified fault. It also reviewed its procedure and made service improvements to ensure such errors do not occur in future. We could add nothing more to the Council’s response and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
10. I also do not consider Mr Y suffering significant personal injustice because of an oversight in the grass cutting schedule.
11. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response, and he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman