The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging for remedial work to the public highway. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, says a rogue company removed a tree from the public highway and installed a poor quality dropped kerb outside his home. Mr X says he did not ask for the work to be carried out, but felt pressured into paying the company. The Council wants Mr X to pay almost £2000 to correctly install the dropped kerb and to plant a replacement tree. Mr X wants the Council to waive half of the £2000 bill.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X says a company visited his home and asked if he needed any landscaping work carrying out. Mr X mentioned a dropped kerb and he says the company agreed to send him a quote. Mr X says he did not hear from the company, but it then started the work without warning. Mr X says he works from home, but his role meant it was difficult for him to quickly approach the workmen. When he was finally able to do this, a tree had been removed and other landscaping work had started. Mr X says the Council did not stop the work when it visited the next day and he felt pressured into paying the company for the work.
The Council has asked Mr X to pay around £2000 to put the work right and to plant a replacement tree. Mr X complained to the Council and offered to pay half of the £2000. Mr X says he and the Council are both victims of the damage caused by the company.
In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said: He has previously contacted the Council about a dropped kerb and having the tree removed.
When the work first started, Mr X made no attempt to speak to the workers, police, or council. It only became aware of the work when one of Mr X’s neighbours contacted it.
Mr X has already had work carried out to create a hardstanding area to the front of his house.
Mr X had not mentioned feeling threatened by the company in any of his contact with the Council.
It should have contacted the company as part of the initial investigation into Mr X’s complaint. It had now done this. The company said there was a verbal agreement with Mr X for it to carry out the work. Mr X had said all necessary permissions had been taken care of.
The investigation carried out was satisfactory and the offer made to Mr X for him to pay for the remedial work was the best course of action.
Assessment I recognise Mr X’s frustrations at the issues which led to him contacting the Ombudsman. But we are not an appeal body for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot intervene unless there is fault in how the Council has reached a decision.
Based on the evidence available we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council has considered what Mr X said and has decided he should be responsible for the cost of the remedial work. It has explained its decision to Mr X. If we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council has reached this decision.
Also, Mr X’s injustice flows from the payment he made to the company which carried out the work – not the Council’s actions. The Council is simply charging Mr X for the work it considers necessary. Mr X would like the Council to waive half the charge, but that in itself is not a reason for the Council to do so. If Mr X feels the company pressured him into paying for work he did not request, then he can contact the Police or take the company to court. That would potentially resolve the injustice to Mr X which is at the heart of his complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman