Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbour removed Japanese knotweed from the field behind her home and delayed dealing with this matter. Miss X said this caused her distress and uncertainty. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbour removed Japanese knotweed from the field behind her home and delayed dealing with this matter. Miss X said this caused her distress and uncertainty.

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 a Council’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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

8. Japanese knotweed is the most common invasive knotweed plant species in the UK. 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 allowing it to spread into the wild.
9. Schedule nine of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it illegal to cause Japanese knotweed to grow in the wild. The national wildlife crime unit and the police enforce this act.
10. Japanese knotweed matters are a civil matter between the owner of the land where the plant originated from, and the homeowner where the nuisance or property damage occurs.
11. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. This can include using powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
12. Most relevant to this complaint, the 2014 Act gave councils the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN). These notices aim to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, requires the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice. Service of a notice can only follow once the council has given a written warning to the recipient.
13. In 2014 the Home Office issued guidance that allowing invasive species to spread, such as Japanese Knotweed, could be a form of anti-social behaviour. In 2017 the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH) highlighted this in guidance given to its members. In 2022 the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published advice aimed at those selling or buying land with Japanese Knotweed. This too referred to the 2014 Home Office guidance.
14. More recently, in March 2023, the Government issued revised guidance for Councils on use of the 2014 Act. This contains no specific reference to invasive plant species such as Japanese Knotweed. Instead, it encourages councils to take a proportionate response to any specific behaviour causing harm or nuisance.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Miss X’s garden backs onto farmland. She reported Japanese knotweed growing onto her property to the Council in late 2023.
17. The Council completed a visit to the area in April 2024. The visit confirmed Japanese knotweed was present. The Council agreed to contact the landowner.
18. The Council engaged with the landowner’s agent. After three months of communication, the agent agreed it would appoint a specialist to treat the Japanese knotweed. The Council passed Miss X’s details to the agent, who confirmed they would employ a specialist.
19. Miss X complained to the Council in March 2025. She complained about the lack of progress removing the Japanese knotweed.
20. The Council responded to the complaint a week later. The response detailed what the Council had done to deal with the Japanese knotweed. The Council said the landowner’s agent was dealing with the matter and had Miss X’s details. The Council did not uphold the complaint as the matter was between Miss X and the landowner.
21. Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two in April 2025. She expressed concern the Council thought the landowner was dealing with the matter. She asked the Council to mediate with the landowner and ensure they dealt with the Japanese knotweed.
22. The Council contacted the landowner’s agent after Miss X raised the stage two complaint. The agent said the source of the Japanese knotweed was a private property, not the farmland. The agent said while it was not responsible for the plant, it offered to complete treatment to remove the knotweed if residents met conditions.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint at the end of April 2025. The Council said the landowner’s offer to remove the Japanese knotweed was ongoing.
24. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to make the landowner remove the Japanese knotweed.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it considered using its ASB powers but decided it did not need to as the landowner offered to treat the Japanese knotweed.

My findings

26. While Miss X is understandably concerned about the impact the Japanese knotweed may have on her property, the issues complained about are a civil matter between Miss X and the landowner. The Council has investigated the matter, spoken with the landowner’s agent and provided contact details to enable contact between the two parties. The Council is not at fault.
27. If someone allows an invasive species to grow onto neighbouring land, the Council can consider if this is ASB. The Council considered this matter and contacted the owner of the field. The Council considered there was no ASB because the owner agreed to take actions to remove the Japanese knotweed. The Council considered all the information available. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the merits of it. The Council was not at fault.
28. Since the Council made the decision and issued its complaint response, the landowner challenged the origin of the Japanese knotweed. This matter relates to the civil matter between Miss X and the landowner, so I cannot comment on it.
29. This matter is further complicated by the Council owning some properties impacted by the Japanese knotweed. The law says we cannot investigate any complaint which involves the Council acting as a landlord. This means we cannot consider any actions relating to the Council owned properties and Japanese knotweed.

Back to top

Decision

30. I have not found fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman