Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of damage to a grass verge outside her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained to the Council about a neighbour parking on the grass verge at the edge of her property’s boundary. Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s response and suggested actions.

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 (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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained to the Council about parking on a grass verge at the edge of her property’s boundary. Miss X said the property’s deeds indicated there should be a pavement between the edge of her property and the roadside. The Land Registry also said roads and pavements on her estate were to be adopted and maintained by the Council. Miss X said the grass verge was being damaged and this was affecting her ability to enjoy her home.
6. Miss X was also unhappy she received a notice from the Council instructing her to remove rocks she had placed on the grass verge to deter parking. The Council explained it was an offence to block verges with the use of rocks. It said that if someone was injured or damaged their vehicle, legal action could be taken.
7. Miss X asked the Council to consider a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or install physical deterrents such as kerb stones to prevent parking on the grass verge.
8. The Council carried out a visit to assess the grass verge against its criteria for management. The Council decided it was a low priority and explained it only had funding to carry out work at locations considered a high priority. The Council said that due to the design of the road and because traffic speed was low there was no requirement to provide a footpath. The Council said it would be an unreasonable burden on its resources to implement a TRO or to install physical deterrents.
9. While I recognise the importance of this matter to Miss X, we will not start an investigation into her complaint. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. In this case, the Council has considered Miss X’s concerns, visited the site, and decided action is not appropriate. Without evidence of fault in how that decision was reached we cannot become involved. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered Miss X’s concerns and explained its decision. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman