Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance because decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain the highway in a safe condition as it failed to have an allegedly overgrown hedge removed or cut back fully.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him frustration as he has needed to move around the obstructed pavement when going for hospital treatment. He has also taken time to complaint about the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In this case the Council has considered Mr Y’s complaint about the overgrown hedge, which he says is obstructing the footpath. 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.
8. The Council has visited the site and has considered whether there is an obstruction which would warrant enforcement action. It has used its professional judgement and expertise when considering this. Through consideration of the area, including seeing a pushchair being able to navigate the pavement, it has determined that there is not an obstruction which would warrant enforcement action.
9. Mr Y may disagree with the conclusion the Council has made, however, as it has considered the complaint, investigated it and formed its view based on relevant evidence, the decision has been made properly. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.
10. Further, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. We would not consider the inconvenience Mr Y has described as a serious loss, harm or distress which would justify use of public funds to investigate. Consequently, we will not investigate.
12. As we are not considering the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint and we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman