Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not requiring a neighbour to remove or cut back a bush at the end of his drive, and its reply to his solicitor’s letter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor of a sufficiently significant injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of, to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in property with a driveway. On one side of the end of the driveway where it joins the highway is a neighbour’s bush. Mr X complains the Council:
1. initially agreed to remove the bush then changed the decision;
2. did not respond properly to his 2025solicitor’s letter.
2. Mr X says contractors working at his property complain the bush obstructs their view when reversing their vans into the road. He says it similarly obstructs his view when taking his car off the driveway. Mr X says many schoolchildren use the road and the bush causes a road safety issue. He wants the Council to remove the bush which he says the highways officers originally agreed to do.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X first complained to the Council about the bush in 2023. The Council gave him its final decision in February 2024 and referred him to us. Mr X did not complain to us but continued to correspond with the Council. Officers responded later in 2024 to advise they would be seeking some works to the bush by its owner to reduce its impact on the highway. This work was delayed and then in 2025 the Council decided the bush’s highway impact was not sufficient to warrant them taking action. Mr X objected to this and the Council again referred him to us. He raised his complaint with us in June 2025.
8. The Council gave its final decision on Mr X’s initial complaint in February 2024, about 15 months before he complained to us. We normally expect people to complain to us about something they consider a council has done wrong within 12 months of finding out about it. However, we consider there are good reasons for us to consider the entire complaint here. Mr X’s further contacts in 2024 and 2025 were a continuation of the same issue, while also adding in the Council’s later decision on what work it should seek to the bush, and the reply to the solicitor’s letter. The Council had appropriate opportunity since February 2024 to treat Mr X’s additional issues as another complaint, so we are exercising discretion to investigate them now.
9. Mr X complains the Council has not removed the bush as it previously agreed to do in 2024. An officer advised Mr X they had contacted the owner of the bush to seek work to cut it back. But none of the evidence Mr X has provided shows the Council agreed to require its owner to remove it, or that it would instruct contractors to do so if the owner did not. Furthermore, the work the Council was seeking was to the front of the bush adjoining its highway, to reduce its impact on the pavement. None of Mr X’s evidence shows officers wanted the owner to reduce the side of the bush bordering his driveway. There is not enough evidence of fault in this part of the complaint by the Council to warrant us investigating.
10. The Council’s concern here, as the highways authority, was to consider what action if any was needed to protect the use and amenity of the highway. Any impact of the bush on Mr X’s use of his driveway is a private civil matter between him and the bush’s owner. If Mr X continues to seek its removal or significant reduction, this is an outcome he may wish to pursue with its owner.
11. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s final decisions on the need for the removal or reduction of the bush. But we are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision‑making process and, but for that fault, officers would have reached a different conclusion. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
12. To make its decision not to pursue works to the bush, the Council visited the site and assessed its highways impact. Officers gathered relevant information about the size and location of the bush to reach their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us investigating. It is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
13. Even if there was Council fault in its decisions regarding work to the bush, we will not investigate. Mr X says he and other users of his driveway have to be careful when they emerge from it on to the highway. But that he and others have to drive with care is not a sufficiently significant injustice to warrant us investigating. Mr X raises safety concerns about other road users including pedestrians. But he does not mention that there have been any accidents involving users of the highway and his drive. Any such impact on other road users would in any event not be his personal injustice. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to justify an investigation.
14. Mr X has complained about the Council’s reply to his solicitor’s letter. The Council replied to explain its position, disagreeing with the terms of the letter. We recognise Mr X does not agree with the Council’s position but that is not fault. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to warrant investigation. Even if there were fault, how the Council replied to the letter does not cause such significant injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating.
15. The complaint outcome Mr X seeks is for the Council to get the bush removed. We cannot order councils to remove vegetation, nor order them to get its owner or contractors to do so. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks here is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman