The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an alleyway and fencing which run at the back of Ms X’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an alleyway and fencing which run behind her property. She says it should reimburse her for the money she spent in removing rotten fencing from the side of the alleyway.
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X paid to have the back alleyway behind her property cleared to allow access along it as the Council had told her the alleyway did not belong to the Council. Subsequently, realising it had been wrong and that the alleyway did belong to the Council, it refunded Ms X the money she had paid for its clearance.
Ms X also asked the Council to address rotten fencing running along the side of the alleyway at the end of neighbours’ gardens. However, on checking its records, the Council told Ms X the fencing was not the Council’s, it was not responsible for it and that it was a civil matter between neighbours.
In responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters the Council confirmed the alleyway was the Council’s and it would clear it when required. However, it said the relevant deeds were silent on the issue of ownership of the fence so it could not confirm ownership. It said even if it was responsible for the boundary, it would not provide fencing and that this was an issue for the property owner. It said the fencing had been checked and did not pose an immediate risk to health and safety.
Ms X later paid to have the fencing removed and seeks to recover this cost from the Council. However, the Council has already explained that it is not responsible for the fencing and that it is a civil matter between neighbours. It is open to Ms X to approach her neighbours about the costs she has incurred. However, there are no outstanding issues which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman