Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to address environmental issues causing damage to Ms X’s property because it is reasonable for Ms X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to:
• ensure its tenant maintains their garden, leaving her to cut back overgrowth coming through her fencing and resulting in damage to her property;
• address fly tipping;
• maintain the pavement and road;
• address knotweed in its tenant’s garden;
• address parking issues on her road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council in July 2025 and it responded in August. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 in September but she had not received a further response by December. As the Council has had the opportunity to address the complaint I consider it reasonable to exercise discretion on prematurity.
8. I acknowledge it is inconvenient to have to cut back overgrowth coming through from neighbouring properties but this is not a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. And it is reasonable for Ms X to go to court for it to decide on liability for any damage to her property caused by overgrown plants and/or knotweed.
9. Ms X says the Council clears the fly tipped rubbish each day but has not taken action to prevent recurrence. As the rubbish is cleared I consider any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
10. Ms X has the right to apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order requiring the council to take whatever action is needed to bring the highway up to standard. It is reasonable for Ms X to go to court and so I will not investigate.
11. Ms X complained of parking issues on her road and the Council said it planned to introduce a controlled parking zone to address these issues. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman