Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has targeted him in its response to a Highways issue. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has accused him of driving over a public grass verge to access his drive. He says it is clearly victimisation as the Council has not said the same to his neighbours where there is evidence they may be doing the same.
2. Mr X says the Council has affected him mentally and he would like the person who carried out the inspection to be suspended, for a senior manager to visit so they can understand the problems, an explanation why the neighbours did not receive similar letters and compensation.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council about an issue at his home. When a Council officer attended, they noted that gravel had been placed on a public grass verge. The Council wrote to Mr X asking him to remove it.
7. Mr X complained the Council accused him of driving over the grass verge but did not say anything to his neighbours about similar evidence they use the verge in the same way.
8. The Council responded to say the reason they had inspected Mr X’s property was his contact with the Council. While inspecting, the Council noted that there was gravel over the public verge outside Mr X’s home.
9. The fact the Council asked Mr X to remove gravel or that it told him how he can apply to have the access to his drive widened are not issues which would likely amount to fault.
10. The Council has explained it attended Mr X’s property in response to his contact with it. Not carrying out an inspection of all the properties on his street is not therefore indicative of the Council targeting Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman