Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the management of a boundary fence between the Council’s park and Ms X’s property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s management of the fence that separates the alleyway behind her house from the adjoining park. She said the fence is worn out and too low, and the Council has removed trees and shrubs which provided some screening. Ms X says these factors have contributed to an increase in anti-social behaviour (ASB), including littering and fly tipping into the private alleyway.
2. Ms X says she has had to remove refuse from the alleyway. She also feels vulnerable and anxious because of being exposed to the ASB. She wants the Council to replace the fence with a taller one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council inspected the fence. It found that it was in good condition. The hedges and bushes had been pruned as part of the park's standard winter maintenance programme. 
7. The Council explained to Ms X that the alleyway between the park and her property was unadopted, so responsibility for it lay with the landowners. Nevertheless, the Council is considering possible solutions to deter incidents of ASB, including replacing the existing fence with a taller one, or replacing the existing hedge with a different type of shrub. The Council explained to Ms X how she could apply for the Neighbourhood Investment Fund, as it could not fund these from its operational budget for parks.
8. Our role is not to decide whether we agree or disagree with what an organisation did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issues raised by
   Ms X, and the information it took account of when making decisions. The Council inspected the fence when Ms X raised concerns about its condition, but came to a different conclusion than Ms X. Ms X disagreeing with the Council’s view does not, in itself, mean the Council was at fault. Carrying out routine maintenance of hedges is also not fault. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or how it made its decisions and I therefore cannot question whether its decisions were right or wrong.
10. Ms X should report incidents of ASB, littering and fly tipping to the Council when they occur. If she is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her reports, it is open to her to complain separately about that.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman