Bracknell Forest Council (21 012 793)
Category : Transport and highways > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 12 Jan 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to tarmac over a small grass verge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council will not tarmac a grass verge on the pavement outside her home. Mrs X wants the Council to replace the grass with tarmac.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- 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))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and photographs. I considered comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
- There is a narrow grass verge outside Mrs X’s home. The verge is behind a fence and bushes and cannot be seen from the house. The photographs show the verge does not restrict access into Mrs X’s drive. There are sections of the street that do not have a grass verge where the path is all tarmac.
- Mrs X asked the Council to remove the verge because it is unsightly; she referred to mud and dog faeces. Mrs X had planted some flowers in the verge but they were cut during maintenance work. Mrs X asked the Council to replace the verge with tarmac. Mrs X says she is being discriminated against because some residents of the street do not have a grass strip outside their homes. She also says the weeds spread to her side of the fence and she struggles to deal with them for health reasons.
- In response, the Council explained that while it was unfortunate her flowers had been cut, she did not have consent to do any work to Council land. It said the grass, and possibly the flowers, would regrow. The Council explained it has no plans to tarmac the verge. It said the verges contribute to a less urban feel to the street scene, are a feature of many roads in the borough, do not impede access and help drainage. The Council said it would not remove the verge.
- I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council owns the verge and it is for the Council to decide whether to retain it. That is not a decision for us to make. The Council has explained why it wishes to retain the verge. There is nothing in those reasons which suggest we need to start an investigation. Mrs X may disagree but this does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. We are not an appeal body and cannot intervene simple because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
- I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate Mrs X says the verge is unsightly and attracts rubbish but this does not represent an injustice which requires an investigation. And, while Mrs X has reported that her husband has mobility issues, the verge does not impede access and it angles away from the driveway. A small strip of grass would not be maintained to the same standard as more prominent or substantial areas and while Mrs X may find it hard to remove the weeds this, again, does not represent a degree of injustice requiring an investigation. In any case, we can only consider injustice flowing from Council fault and there is no suggestion of fault.
FInal decision
- I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman