Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about overgrowth from adjacent land affecting her property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council initially assured her it would make the adjacent landowner deal with overgrowth affecting her property. But she says it has failed to achieve a solution. Mrs B says the overgrowth is limiting the sunlight to her home, it has caused her boundary fence to weaken and it is encouraging vermin.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mrs B provided and her comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. To put things right, Mrs B wants the Council to make the landowner maintain the land on a regular basis. She thought the Council would be able to achieve this for her.
5. In its final response to Mrs B’s complaint the Council said it had contacted the landowner informally in early 2019. The Council said the landowner had then done some maintenance. The Council said it had carried out a further visit and attempted to contact the landowner again. But it said it had to take account of the existing use of the land and to assess the level of harm to the community caused by the overgrowth. The judgement the Council reached was the level of harm did not meet the threshold for taking formal enforcement action. That meant it could not give Mrs B the assurance she was seeking.
6. In this case the Council has taken the steps we would expect. It has visited the land and attempted to secure the landowner’s informal compliance. It has assessed whether there is sufficient evidence for it to take formal enforcement action. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its judgement. Damage to property is a civil matter which Mrs B can pursue with the adjacent landowner and her insurers.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman