Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about highways maintenance, because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking and the Council have responded appropriately, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Finally, there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response to his service request because the grass verge on a central reservation near his home was overgrown. Mr X said the Council;
• Wrongly said it had completed the work when it had not;
• delayed completing the work because it had no capability, and;
• had an inefficient tendering process to ensure it could complete the works in the future.
2. Mr X wants a part refund on his council tax and for the Council to ensure it can deliver this service.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to cut the grass verge outside his home. He said it was overgrown and a danger to road users. Shortly after this, the Council notified this work had been completed and Mr X pointed out it had not. Mr X was also unhappy the Council then could not complete the works because it did not have the capability ‘in-house’.
6. The Council apologised to Mr X for its earlier initial miscommunication about the work being completed when it had not been. It also gave him an explanation for why this occurred and said it had taken steps to prevent this happening again. It apologised the work had been significantly delayed and again apologised for this. It explained the delay was due to tendering processes.
7. We will not investigate. Firstly, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking as we cannot ask the Council to refund his council tax, and secondly, given the actions of the Council in response to his complaint are appropriate, any further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome here.
8. In any case, any injustice the Council’s actions have caused Mr X are not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking, the Council have responded appropriately and there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman