The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about maintenance of a soil bank. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and not significant enough injustice to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council has failed to replenish a soil bank on which a wall for his property is built.
Mr Y is concerned that large vehicles which are repeatedly parking on the banked verge is causing the bank to erode and that his wall will eventually collapse, potentially hurting others or damaging property. Mr Y is worried and frustrated at the Council’s lack of response to the problem.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether an organisation’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) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y complained to the Council about the erosion of the soil bank outside his home, on which there is a boundary wall, in May 2021. Mr Y asked the Council to place bollards on the bank to prevent further parking, especially by large vehicles to reduce the erosion and prevent the wall from being undermined and falling.
The Council explained in November that the bank was too narrow to do this without affecting the highway itself following an inspection of the site it had visited in September. Mr Y complained, asking it to rebuild the soil bank to replace the eroded parts, if it would not place bollards there.
The Council’s complaint response in February 2022, said it had inspected the site, and found the wall remained stable and secure. It worked with local police to agree that the police would issue warning letters to vehicles found to have been parking on the verge. The Council said explained that having taken these steps and inspected the wall it did not consider the bank as a priority for its work and resources currently. Mr Y then approached us in May.
Analysis The Council has inspected the wall and the soil bank outside Mr Y’s home. In its professional opinion, the wall is structurally secure and while the bank has been eroded, it is not eroded to the point where work needs to be carried out urgently. It has decided this based on its professional expertise and experience and has considered other actions which it considers suitable following Mr Y’s complaint.
We cannot question whether an organisation’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. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decision, as it has considered relevant factors in making its decision not to rebuild the bank at this time, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
Further, although Mr Y has felt frustrated and worried about the situation, the wall still stands and in the Council’s view is safe and secure. The Council’s decision not to act to replace the soil bank has not at this time caused him significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. For the reasons above, we will not investigate this complaint.
Mr Y has also complained at the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint and in its action to resolve his complaint about the eroded soil. However, as explained in paragraph five, as we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and not significant enough injustice to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman