Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council installing wooden posts on the grass verge outside Mr B’s home. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr B a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has installed wooden posts on the grass verge outside his home to stop the verge being used by vehicles. Mr B says the Council did not consult him and has not provided evidence that a resident raised this concern or that the verge was damaged. Mr B also says he feels he has been treated unfairly because the Council has not installed posts where they are needed in the surrounding area. Mr B says this issue has caused him stress and he is concerned the posts will affect the value of his property. Mr B would like the Council to remove the posts.

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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council including photographs of the wooden posts Mr B is complaining about. I have also viewed the area on Google Streetview.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says it installed the wooden posts in response to a concern raised by a resident about the grass verge being illegally used by vehicles to access a property. The Council has also told Mr B that an engineer had inspected the area and said it appeared that a vehicle was either driving over or parking on the verge.
6. This was a decision for the Council to make as the owner of this land and the Council has explained why it installed the posts.
7. Also, even if there was some fault in the way the Council has handled this matter, I find Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice as a result.
8. The posts will protect the grass verge from damage by vehicles and the posts do not change the fact Mr B does not have permission to drive a vehicle over the grass verge to access his property.
9. Also, I do not see how the posts, which are relatively short and unobtrusive, would negatively affect the value of Mr B’s home. Such measures are often used by homeowners to protect a grass verge outside their home.
10. In addition, as the Council says, if Mr B or a future occupier of his property successfully applies for a vehicle crossover from the local highways authority, the posts can be removed to allow this.
11. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman