Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council failing to require a school to provide fencing following the reshaping of a roadside verge to provide improved sightlines. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s failure to compel a school to provide a boundary fence on the top of a grass verge near her home. She says since the original fence and vegetation were cleared as part of a scheme to alter the school entrance, traffic fumes and dust have affected her home. She says her windows are always dirty and she cannot keep them open.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X lives near a school which had a widened entrance created in 2018. The work to the verge on the main road included removal of vegetation and a wooden fence which was on the boundary of highways land. Since the fence was removed Mrs X says dust and traffic fumes have affected her property. The school held a meeting with residents which was attended by a Council officer. She says the school gave an undertaking to replace the fencing and carry out planting on the verge. This has not been done.
5. Mrs X complained to the Council about its failure to consult residents of her street about the work and failure to make the school provide the fencing. The Council told her that she does not live on a street affected by the works and so would not have been notified about the works on the main road. It says the school said it would replace the fence, but it has no authority to make it do so.
6. The Council’s involvement with the scheme was limited to what took place on the highway verge and it did not propose planting or fencing. The school may apply to the Council for permission to put up a fence or a licence to plant on the verge, but the Council cannot make it do so. Mrs X’s home does not face onto the road where the works took place so she could not make any practical objection to the improvements on the verge.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. In this case the Council has no duty to provide the boundary treatment which Mrs X wants and we could not recommend a remedy for her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mrs X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman