Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing posts placed in the highway verge which it says is Council land. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a legal remedy if he claims the land on which he placed posts is his own land. We cannot determine disputes about boundaries and this is a civil matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council removed posts on the grass verge in front of his home which he says were placed there to protect the grass surface and mature trees. Since their removal he says some of the grass has been damaged. He wants the Council to re-instate the posts but it claims the land is in its ownership and it can decide what should be placed on it.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,
• or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council removed posts which had been placed to protect the grass verge. When he complained he says it quoted the Highways Act 1980 as the reason why it removed the posts. The Council is not the highway authority in this area as that role is performed by the County Council. However, the Council says it is the owner of the grass verge in question and that the posts were unauthorised additions to its land.
7. Mr X says damage is being caused to the verge without the posts being present to protect it and that the Council has wasted public money where there is no policy to remove the verge protection.
8. The Council is the owner of the land and like any other landowner it has a right to remove anything placed on it without its consent. The Council would not require a specific policy to carry out this work to unauthorised installations. We cannot say that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because the verge is not his land and the Council s actions only affected its own land.
9. If Mr X is disputing ownership or costs for the loss of his posts then he would need to seek a remedy in the courts as this would be a civil matter between the Council and an adjacent landowner.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing posts placed in the highway verge which it says is Council land. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a legal remedy if he claims the land on which he placed posts is his own land. We cannot determine disputes about boundaries and this is a civil matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman