Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of weedkiller. This is because there not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s use of weedkiller in his area, stating that his dog became unwell after recent spraying and that this has happened before. Mr X wants the Council to use grass edge cutters instead of weedkiller.

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. Mr X complained that the Council’s use of weedkiller on local paths and verges is irresponsible after his dog became unwell following a walk in an area that appeared to have been recently sprayed. While he accepts weedkiller may be necessary around drains and kerbs, he believes wider use puts the public and pets at risk and asks the Council to consider maintaining the verges by grass cutting instead.
6. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council told Mr X it was not responsible for the spraying he referred to. It said it was not planned to do any such works in Mr X’s area for several more months. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman