Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s complaints about highways matters promptly. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising and the Council’s apology is sufficient remedy to this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to respond promptly to his complaint about highway vegetation. He said that instead of a response a local councillor called at his home and entered his property without permission he also says the Councillor used Council-headed paper to communicate with him. He says he should be awarded some financial compensation for the delay and intrusion.

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 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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his complaints about highway vegetation. Instead, he says a councillor visited his home without arrangement and also misused council-headed paper related to his personal visit.
6. Mr X made a formal compalint and the Council apologised for its failure to respond in a timely manner. It also advised him that the councillor’s visit was not scheduled by the highways authority and that the councillor acted of his own volition. It advised him that this was a member conduct matter and that he should direct his complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer who deals with Code of Conduct matters.
7. Mr X has demanded financial compensation from the Council but in this case there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising and an apology for the delay is sufficient remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s complaints about highways matters promptly. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising and the Council’s apology is sufficient remedy to this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman