Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grass cutting and weed control as it is unlikely we would find fault causing him significant injustice. We will not investigate his complaint about the state of the public highway as it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s grass cutting and weed control in his local area. He also says the Council has failed to fix defects in the roads and pavements and to remove litter from the public highway. He says this has made him angry.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and discussed the case with him.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its grass cutting in mid-2019. He said it had not cut the edges, left grass cuttings in-situ and that weeds had not been removed. The Council explained it leaves grass cuttings as it is not practical to remove them and they fertilise the soil when they break down. It explained it aims to cut the grass every two to three weeks but this may be delayed by factors including the weather. It confirmed it had sprayed the weeds and would consider whether further treatment was necessary, but it later decided this was not cost effective. Its highways officer visited the area but reported no issues.
6. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X raised further issues about the state of the roads and footpaths and about problems with the drains. He also raises concerns about litter left on the highway.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. While Mr X is angry about the Council’s maintenance of its green spaces the issue does not cause him significant injustice. It is also unlikely we would find fault as the Council has explained the reasons for its actions and delays and I see no basis to criticise its approach. It is for the Council to decide how best to allocate its resources and how to react to external factors which affect its ability to follow its normal practices.
8. Mr X has not recently raised any complaint about the state of the highways (including the roads, footpaths and highway drains) with the Council but he is free to do so if he believes there are issues which require action. But we will not investigate these points further as it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.
9. The Highways Act 1980 places a duty on the Council to maintain public highways including all aspects referred to above. If Mr X believes it has failed to do this the law (Section 56 Highways Act 1980) allows him to serve notice on the Council and take his concerns to the magistrates’ court. The issue requires interpretation of the law to decide whether the Council has fulfilled its obligation and this is not something we can provide; the court is therefore better placed to consider the matter.
10. Similarly, Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on the Council to keep its streets clear of litter and refuse “so far as is practicable”. If Mr X believes the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under Section 89, Section 91 allows him to serve notice on the Council and to apply to the magistrates court for an order requiring it to act. This is the appropriate process any dispute over the Council’s compliance with the legislation and it would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to use it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice and if he believes the Council has failed to fulfil its duties under the Highways Act 1980 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990 it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman