Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with weeds on his road, nor the actions of its contractor after he complained. Even if there has been Council fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. the Council has failed to manage a system to control weeds on the highway outside his property;
2. that when the Council’s contractors did treat the weeds, they did not do the ones he complained about.
2. Mr X finds the weeds unsightly and felt humiliated by the contractors’ actions.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint concerns weeds within a length of pavement and kerb opposite his house. He considers the Council’s systems for killing or removing the weeds has failed for several years. The Council says its contractor treats its highways for weeds twice a year and officers monitor the efficacy of the treatment. If the work has not been effective, they refer this back to their contractor. Officers say their contractor re-treated the weeds complained of and that further monitoring of the results would take place.
6. Even if there has been fault by the Council and its contractor here, we will not investigate. We recognise Mr X may be annoyed by the persistent weeds on the opposite side of the road to his property, which he finds unsightly. But the sight of some weeds is an insufficiently significant injustice to him to warrant us investigating. We understand Mr X considers the contractor acted to humiliate him by not treating the weeds about which he complained. But any impact caused to Mr X, intended or unintended, by the weeds being left on the highway for longer than they might be, is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice to justify us using our resources to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman