Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not mowing the grass on a highway verge when or as often as the complainant expects. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of it causing serious enough injustice to the complainant to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to mow the grass on a highway verge near his home in spring/summer 2023 until later in the season when it had grown tall and created a risk of nuisance or to health and safety. He also says the Council failed properly to reply to his complaint, and he wants a more thorough investigation and discount in his council tax for the lack of service he says he has paid for.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The grass verge near Mr B’s home is part of the highway for which the Council is responsible. The Highways Act 1980 sets out its duty to maintain the highway, but does not set out standards for it. The law says it is for a court of law, nt the Ombudsman, to decide what standards apply and whether a highways authority has met them.
6. Mr B complained to the Council in May 2023, and in July 2023 the Council explained:
• the district council for the area had mown the verges six to eight times a year for appearance and amenity but decided not to continue;
• the Council therefore increased the frequency of mowing verges for highway reasons from once to three times a year;
• there was some delay while it and its contractors put the new arrangements in place for which it apologised; and
• the contractors would mow the verges in Mr B’s area within the next week or so.
7. A street view image online from August 2023 shows the verge near Mr B’s home had been mown within the previous few weeks.
8. The district council had a power but no duty to mow the verges. This Council has a duty to maintain the highway including the verges, but not just as Mr B might want. There is no legal connection between paying council tax and the services a council may provide, so Mr B is not, strictly speaking, paying in return for services; he pays because the law imposes the tax.
9. The injustice Mr B claimed in his complaint does not amount to anything of substance which is serious enough to warrant our involvement, and it stopped soon after the Council replied to his complaint anyway.
10. We will not investigate the internal arrangement of the Council’s contracts and commissioning of services or its handling of complaints separately if we are not investigating the matters which led to the complaint. It is not a good use of public money.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of it causing serious enough injustice to him to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman