Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to cut the grass on the highway verge outside their home. This is because the level of loss, harm and distress they have suffered is not high enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs B, complained about the Council’s responses to their complaint about its failure to cut the grass on the highway verge outside their home. Mr and Mrs B told us there has only been one occasion in two and a half years when the grass was cut. They said, when the grass on the highway verge is long, there is poor visibility when they exit their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mr and Mrs B provided, including their photographs and their comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr and Mrs B told us, before they moved to their current home, they had been informed the Council maintained the highway verge outside their home. Mr and Mrs B contacted the Council in 2018 when it had failed to cut the grass on the highway verge. They asked the Council about the frequency and timing of grass cutting. Mr and Mrs B told us they contacted the Council again about the issue in the summer of 2019. They said the Council confirmed it would investigate.
7. In May 2020 the Council replied to Mr B’s enquiry about grass cutting on the highway verge. It said the District Council, who carried out grass cutting in urban areas on its behalf, had been massively affected by the recent situations.
8. The Council replied to Mr and Mrs B’s complaint in July 2020 after considering photographs and the comments of the engineer for the area. The Council said it cut verges in urban areas four times in each annual cutting season and rural route roadside verges twice a year. The Council said it cuts up to about one metre from the edge of the carriageway or footway.
9. In subsequent emails the Council explained it has two standards of grass cutting. One is for rural and one is for urban areas. But, due to the nature of the land to the front of Mr and Mrs B’s home, the Council said its contractor cannot cut the grass with a ride on mowing machine. So it cuts that area to the lower rural cut standard.
10. Mr and Mrs B were dissatisfied with the Council’s response to their complaint. They explained their area is not rural because there are houses all around theirs. They said they pay for the service in their council tax and due to personal circumstances and the nature of the land, they cannot cut the grass themselves. Mr and Mrs B said the Council cuts almost every other verge and visibility splay in their village, except for the area outside their home. They said they have seen operatives using a strimmer elsewhere in the village. They told us the Council has been uncooperative, it has given them conflicting information about the frequency of grass cutting and refused to answer their questions.
11. Mr and Mrs B told us there are other highway issues in their area and they have provided photographs. These are located further away from their home. Mr and Mrs B believe the Council has a total disregard for the main road running through their village.
12. People must bring their complaint to us within twelve months of first having notice of the matter about which they are complaining. Mr and Mrs B have known about the grass cutting issue since 2018, more than twelve months before they contacted us. But we have discretion to consider late complaints if there are good reasons to do so. Mr and Mrs B have said they had to wait a long time before they received confirmation of land ownership. Also, they said the problem they have described has been ongoing, Mr B had to make frequent hospital visits, the Council failed to tell them about the time limit for complaining and they did not receive detailed responses to their complaint until 2020. Those are good reasons for us to consider what has happened in this case.
13. Mr and Mrs B told us the Council has only cut the grass verge outside their home once in two and a half years. That means the Council failed to meet the rural cut standard which it applies to this type of land. But we must consider objectively whether the injustice Mr and Mrs B have suffered is significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr and Mrs B are, understandably, concerned about the level of visibility when they exit their home. They have referred to the amount of stress they have suffered However, had the Council’s contractor carried out two cuts each year, that would not have completely removed the problem for Mr and Mrs B. We focus our resources on cases where we consider complainants have suffered the most serious loss, harm or distress as a result of fault by a council. The level of loss, harm and distress Mr and Mrs B have suffered is not high enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the level of loss, harm and distress they have suffered is not high enough to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman