Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take action to stop the complainant’s neighbour from removing bollards along a grass verge, and that it should install additional bollards. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council, and it has taken satisfactory action to address the alleged anti-social behaviour.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, says the Council should take action against a neighbour who keeps removing bollards so he can park a vehicle on the grass verge outside her house. Mrs B says the Council intended to replace three of the bollards, but ended up only installing two because the neighbour threatened the Council workers.
2. Mrs B says the grass verge is getting churned up by the neighbour’s vehicle, and thinks this could affect the value of her property if she decides to sell in the future. Mrs B is also concerned that a pedestrian could be hurt when her neighbour reverses along the pavement and up on to the verge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & 24A(7), as amended)

4. And 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• Mrs B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The complaint correspondence between Mrs B and the Council;
• An on-line ‘street view’ of the grass verge outside Mrs B’s property;
• Information from the Council about why it did not install the third bollard, and the neighbour’s behaviour during the installation of the replacement bollards;
• Mrs B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Between Mrs B’s front garden wall and the road, there is a public footpath and then a grass verge. The Council has erected bollards along the edge of the grass verge next to the road. Mrs B says her neighbour removed some of the bollards, and she reported this to the Council. She had also reported an altercation with the neighbour to the Police.
7. The Council said an order had been raised to install a further three bollards. It noted Mrs B believed the previous bollards had been removed by her neighbour. But as the Police had not contacted the Council about the issue, and it had no evidence that the neighbour was responsible, the Council felt it could not pursue this aspect of the complaint further. It did, however, refer the matter to its Neighbourhood Team, and the Council wrote to all neighbours to instruct them not to park on the grass verges or vandalise the bollards.
8. Mrs B says when the replacement bollards were being installed, the neighbour threatened the workers, and this is why the third bollard was not erected. I asked the Council for further information about this. It explained to me that although an order was raised for three bollards, a decision was taken on-site to relocate two bollards into a more suitable position, that would not cause any obstructions to residents, but which would work to prevent vehicles overriding the length of the grass verges. It also explained that whilst its operatives were installing the bollards, they noted hostile behaviour between family members at both properties regarding the installation and removal of the bollards in general. It says no direct threats to its staff were reported, and the operatives noted it appeared to be an ongoing neighbour dispute.
9. Mrs B says the neighbour is still parking on the verge.

Assessment

10. I appreciate Mrs B thinks the Council should install the third bollard, as she believes this would prevent the neighbour from continuing to park on the verge.
11. But the Council was entitled to reach an alternative professional judgement on‑site about whether the third bollard was necessary, particularly given the limited funding available to most Councils. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was reached. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault here to warrant the Ombudsman investigating the Council’s decision further.
12. In addition, whilst I understand Mrs B is unhappy about the appearance of the grass verge, I am not persuaded that this injustice is significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the complaint. I note Mrs B believes the appearance of verge might affect the value of her property if she decides to sell. But this is a speculative injustice about what might happen in the future. The Ombudsman cannot investigate or remedy possible future injustice, because the law does not allow us to consider something that has not yet happened.
13. Finally, the Council was entitled to reach its own view that it had insufficient evidence to demonstrate the neighbour is responsible for removing the bollards or parking on the verge. I therefore think its decision to write to all neighbours, was an appropriate and proportionate way to address this part of the complaint. If Mrs B provides the Council with evidence of vehicles continuing to park on the verge, then it can reassess the situation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault, and the Council has taken satisfactory action to address the alleged anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman