The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action to cut back vegetation along the lane used by Mr X to access his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says overgrown vegetation along the lane to his property has caused problems, damaging his property and preventing ease of access for him and those living in his property. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X lives in a rural location and access to his property is via a single-track lane along which vegetation grows. He complained to the Council that the vegetation had overgrown saying his vehicle had been damaged and that he had had to walk to his property rather than drive along the lane as his vehicle would have been further damaged.
Officers responded by driving the length of the lane in a small van and found no issue in doing so. While it was acknowledged there were a couple of occasions when the vegetation did touch the door mirror, the Council said this did not prevent travel along the lane and that no further action was warranted. The Council did apologise to Mr X because it delayed in responding to his complaint about the matter.
It is not our role to question decisions councils have taken if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Here the Council travelled the length of the lane but decided the vegetation was such that action was not required. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
While I note the Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint, this is not a matter we will investigate when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman