Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway encroachment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with his reports of residents growing hedges or other vegetation that obstructs the highway or the highway verge in various places. Mr X states this has exposed him and other residents to danger and loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman does not automatically investigate every allegation a Council is at fault. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to oversee or police councils’ activities generally. As paragraph 2 explained, we will usually only investigate a complaint where the actual or alleged fault causes the person complaining a significant enough injustice to justify the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation.
6. The locations where Mr X complains of encroachment are not in the immediate vicinity of Mr X’s home. Mr X has not indicated how often he needs to visit those locations on foot or in a vehicle and the extent of any impact on him in practical terms. So, while I accept he has some concern about safety and inconvenience at those locations, I do not consider that amounts to a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
7. I do not consider any loss of amenity or adverse effect on the street scene in places some distance from Mr X’s home disadvantages him significantly enough to warrant investigation even though Mr X might see such effects when passing. Mr X also refers to the loss of a publicly owned verge due to ‘theft’ by residents. I do not consider that disadvantages Mr X significantly enough to warrant investigation either.
8. Mr X suggests other people are affected, not just him. That in itself is not enough to justify the Ombudsman investigating. The Ombudsman’s primary role is to decide complaints by individuals. As I explained, it is not our role to oversee or regulate the Council’s handling of reports of highway obstruction generally.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman