Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a potential highway obstruction issue because the court are better placed to consider the issue, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly accused him of obstructing the highway with the placement of his fence. Mr Y denies any obstruction and says the fence is on his land. He also complained the Council has failed to answer his complaint about the issue or about a local councillor.
2. Mr Y says the problem has caused him upset and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has complained that the Council has wrongly accused him of obstructing the highway with the placement of a fence, which Mr Y says is on his own land, and therefore is not obstructing the highway. At the heart of this issue is a boundary dispute, specifically based on whether the fence is on Mr Y’s land or not. This is not an issue the Ombudsman is able to decide as we do not have the power to investigate land disputes. The courts however can decide where the boundary of Mr Y’s land lies and make a decision on this. Consequently, the courts are better placed to consider the complaint, and whether there is or is not an obstruction. We will not investigate.
7. Mr Y has also complained about a councillor’s actions. Mr Y has told us as an outcome to our investigation he is seeking that the councillor is held to account. The Council’s complaint response shows that the councillor is no longer working as a councillor in the area. Consequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
8. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court are better placed to consider the issue, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman