The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action over the removal of a grass verge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complaint, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not take action over a resident in his road who removed a grass verge to extend their dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes photographs of the site before and after the verge was removed. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
In early 2021 Mr X reported to the Council that a resident in his road had removed a grass verge and replaced it with tarmac.
The Council inspected the site and decided not to take any action. This was because the work had been done to a satisfactory standard and did not present any safety risks. It notified Mr X of its decision in September and apologised for its delayed response.
Mr X complained about the decision not to take enforcement action. In response the Council said it owns the land and it is for the Council to decide whether to take action. It agreed the resident had not sought permission to remove the grass but said the work did not interfere with anyone’s property and there were no safety issues or concerns about the standard of the work. The Council said there was no impact on Mr X.
Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response and says the Council took a long time to reply. He says the removal of the grass has created an eyesore, that most properties in the road have verges, and the action will encourage pavement parking.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Mr X dislikes the removal of the grass but there is no evidence that it has had any direct impact on him. I do not agree it has created an eyesore and the presence of the dropped kerb will discourage pavement parking. I have looked at images of the street and there are areas with and without grass verges and areas with and without dropped kerbs – the area in question remains in keeping with the streetscene.
The Council’s response to Mr X was delayed. But, it apologised and said it was working to improve communications. Again, the impact of the delay is not one that requires an investigation.
Final decision
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman