Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to maintain the grounds near to where he lives in line with other adjacent estates. We do not find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to maintain the grounds near to where he lives in line with other adjacent estates. He says the lack of maintenance is visually unattractive and is causing a potential health and safety hazard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policy for creating and managing species-rich grassland

6. The Council adopted a new policy in 2022. The policy states the Council will selectively relax maintenance regimes for grassland areas where it is considered this will benefit wildlife and promote biodiversity.

What happened

7. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2023. He said it had failed to maintain the grass in the estate where he lives. He also said the soil had eroded onto the paths. The Council responded and said it had introduced a new policy to reduce the frequency of grass cutting in the area. It also said it would investigate the soil erosion further. Mr X responded and said he did not accept its response. He said it was responsible for maintaining the grass.
8. The Council visited the area and issued a further response. It said it maintained the grounds in a naturalistic way to benefit the wildlife in accordance with its grass cutting policy. It said it would continue to leave the grass uncut.
9. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said its new policy meant soil was eroding onto the path near to where lives and his car parking space. He also said it had not maintained the shrubs and trees until a recent visit in July.
10. The Council issued a further response to Mr X in August. It reiterated it was carrying out the maintenance in accordance with its policy. It said people were shortcutting down the bank and this was leading to the soil erosion. It said while this was unfortunate, it would occur irrespective of the maintenance regime in place.
11. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2024 and said maintenance was still poor with shrubs overhanging the parking spaces. He also said it had failed to take any action to reduce the soil erosion. The Council responded and said it had already addressed his points in a previous response.

Back to top

Analysis

12. The Council’s policy (paragraph six of this statement) places an emphasis on encouraging species-rich grassland and reversing the previous approach whereby officers cut the grass more regularly. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council visited the site. It explained it was maintaining the grounds in line with its policy and to benefit the wildlife. I appreciate Mr X strongly disagrees with this. However, there is no fault in how the Council made its decision, and therefore I cannot question the outcome.
13. Mr X is unhappy the Council is maintaining other estates and green areas more regularly than the grounds near to where he lives. The Council’s policy states it will consider recreational activity and safety hazards alongside competing priorities such as natural environmental aspirations when deciding on an appropriate maintenance regime. In Mr X’s case the grounds do not offer a recreational activity, and they do not require mowing because of safety concerns (they are not close to the highway). Therefore, the Council maintains them less often. This is a decision the Council its entitled to take in line with its policy. I do not find fault.
14. Mr X also says the Council has failed to maintain the shrubs and the trees near to where he lives. In its response to my enquiries, the Council explained it maintains shrubs, trees and hedges in autumn/winter each year as required outside the bird nesting season. It has provided me with photographic evidence of this. While I appreciate Mr X may disagree and want the Council to provide a more intensive maintenance regime, this is not evidence of fault. The Council has considered this matter and decided when it is most appropriate to maintain the shrubs and trees.
15. The Council addressed the issue of soil erosion in its response to Mr X’s complaint. It explained it is a result of human behaviour and not because of the maintenance regime. In its response to my enquiries, the Council further explained that because the banks are steep, the rainwater will follow the pathway down the slope. It said it undertakes limited cleansing and removal of debris from the tarmac from time to time after heavy rainfall. The Council has assessed the matter and decided the reduced maintenance regime has not led to increased soil erosion. That was down to the professional judgement of officers. It also for the Council to decide how to allocate its resources and how often to remove the debris in line with the scale of the problem and the weather. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final Decision

16. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman