this complaint about the Council’s decision to end regular maintenance on land identified as a wildlife corridor. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant personal injustice to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to continue with maintenance on a green site it owns within his company’s housing development. As a result, he says the area is becoming unkempt and residents have complained it may affect their property values.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says his housing development includes green space land owned by the Council and previously maintained by it. Since 2023 the Council has ceased to maintain the site and as a result it has been overgrown by weeds and brambles. He has raised the matter with the Council several times and it responded to his complaint.
The Council says the area has been identified as a wildlife corridor and that with the implementation of the Environment Act 2021 it is required to protect and manage wildlife habitat in urban areas. It says regular cutting and clearing of vegetation results in sites becoming bare in the winter season and of no habitat value.
Mr X says residents in the area have complained about the unsightly appearance and that the neglected look will affect house values without sufficient maintenance.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. The Council decided on the maintenance levels as part of a wider plan for the area and this is in keeping with the legislation issued by central government.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end regular maintenance on land identified as a wildlife corridor. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant personal injustice to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman