Summary: Mr X complained the Council inadequately responded to his reports of Japanese knotweed, and it communicated poorly. Mr X said his home is at risk and he feels ignored. He said it caused unnecessary distress, anxiety and mistrust in the Council. We do not find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council inadequately responded to his reports of Japanese knotweed growth which he is concerned will affect his property. He also complained the Council communicated poorly with him.
2. Mr X said his home remains at risk of Japanese knotweed, and he feels ignored. He said this caused unnecessary distress, anxiety and mistrust in the Council. He said it has also taken a lot of time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in September 2024 about the Council’s actions going back to May 2023.
8. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to exercise our discretion.
9. In this case, I have considered Mr X’s reasons for not complaining to us sooner. I do not consider there are good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate any further back than 12 months before he complained to us.
10. For this reason, I have investigated the Council’s actions from September 2023, 12 months before Mr X complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the relevant legislation and guidance. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. Japanese knotweed is the most common invasive knotweed plant species in the UK.
13. If people have Japanese knotweed on their land or property, they must stop it from spreading off the property. People do not legally have to remove Japanese knotweed from their land unless it is causing a nuisance, but they can be prosecuted for causing it to spread into the wild.
14. The Council’s website says it makes every effort to contain the spread of Japanese knotweed on public land.

What happened

15. In 2023, Mr X repeatedly told the Council there was Japanese knotweed in various locations.
16. The Council told Mr X it could take enforcement action if the Japanese knotweed was spreading from private land onto Council land. It said landowners do not legally have to remove it unless it is causing a nuisance. It said landowners could be prosecuted for causing Japanese knotweed to spread into the wild.
17. In 2024, Mr X complained. He told the Council of more locations where Japanese knotweed was present.
18. The Council said it would send a letter to one of the site owners who had already cut back the Japanese knotweed. It said another site was owned by a different body, not the Council.
19. The Council said it was aware of other sites and was actively managing the Japanese knotweed. It said it had scheduled treatments for those sites, so it did not agree with Mr X that the Council had done nothing.

Analysis

Council’s response to Mr X’s reports

20. Mr X complained the Council inadequately responded to his reports of Japanese knotweed growth which he is concerned will affect his property.
21. The Council said the Japanese knotweed problem has not been resolved to its satisfaction. This is because Japanese knotweed is very difficult to eradicate. The Council said it is committed to treating Japanese knotweed twice a year at any identified sites. These treatment cycles are once in late summer and once in the autumn, when the treatments are most effective. This restricts its growth. The Council aims to slowly eliminate Japanese knotweed, but it accepts it takes a lot of time to do this.
22. The Council said it is satisfied it is taking all the necessary action. I agree.
23. I do not agree with Mr X that the Council inadequately responded to his reports. When Mr X told the Council of new areas he believed had Japanese knotweed, the Council acted on those reports. It added those areas to its treatment programme.
24. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Communication

25. Mr X complained the Council communicated poorly with him. He said the complaints process was not transparent, the Council failed to keep him up to date, it was almost impossible to track, and there were lots of emails to and from different people. He said this added to his frustration and confusion. He said he often did not know who he was speaking to, there was no accountability and no management of the process, and he got fobbed off.
26. I can understand why Mr X would be frustrated when the Council did not reply, or delayed replying, to all of his complaints and messages. However, the Council was under no obligation to respond to all of Mr X’s communications.
27. I find that, on the whole, the Council responded appropriately to Mr X and his complaints.
28. I find there were some delays in the Council responding to some of Mr X’s communications and complaints. However, I do not find these delays are significant enough to constitute fault. I find the Council took Mr X’s concerns seriously, which was appropriate.
29. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman