Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his concerns about removal of trees and failure to maintain a fence between a bank alongside his home and a footpath and road. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decision not to replace the fence or trees. We have found fault, causing injustice, with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his concerns about impact of its removal of trees and failure to maintain a fence between the steep bank alongside his property and the footpath on the top of the bank, and road.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider and take into account its previous agreement to erect the fence, loss of privacy, public safety and environmental impacts before deciding not to replace the fence and/or plant suitable replacement trees and shrubs along the bank.
3. Because of this, he, and other residents living alongside the bank, have no screening from the road noise and constant illumination from car headlights. They have no privacy at home as people on the footpath now have a clear view of their houses and gardens. There is also a safety risk to those using the footpath with no fence in place due to the steep drop down the bank.
4. Mr X wants the Council to replace and maintain the fence in accordance with its previous agreement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. 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)
10. Mr X brought his complaint to us in August 2025. I have not investigated anything that happened before August 2024. This is because I don’t consider there are good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us about these events sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Good administrative practice

13. We publish guidance about good administrative practice for local government.
14. One of these principles is that councils should “get it right” by:

• following the law and taking the rights of those concerned into account;
• following its policy and guidance;
• taking proper account of established good practice;
• providing effective services using appropriately trained and competent staff; and
• taking reasonable timely decisions, based on all relevant considerations.

What happened

15. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
16. Although I am not investigating events before August 2024, I have referred to these as context for the complaint.

Background: 2003 to 2023

17. Mr X lives next to a steep bank on top of which is a footpath running alongside a busy road. When he moved into his home there were conifers between the top of the bank and the road, and no footpath.
18. In 2003/2004 the Council cut back the conifers to build a footpath at the top of the bank, alongside the road.
19. Mr X and other local residents complained about the lack of consultation and the impact of the new footpath on their privacy. The Council agreed to put up a fence between the top of the bank and the footpath. Mr X says the Council also agreed to carry out some secondary planting to thicken the screening provided by the conifer hedge.
20. Some years later the Council removed all the conifers, leaving the fence as the only screening between Mr X’s home and the footpath.
21. In 2016 Mr X raised concerns with his local councillor and the Council about the condition of the fence and the lack of further planting to provide additional screening. An officer had a site meeting with Mr X and the councillor. The Council told them it did not plan to take any action, save for minor repairs to the fence.
22. Mr X had further contact with the Council from 2021, when it removed a number of diseased trees from the bank, until 2023.
23. An officer visited the site in August 2023. They took photos and noted “the whole fence in time will come down, as it is timber and showing signs of rotting out. Replacement trees and self-seeded vegetation establishing well - come next summer vegetation height will be even higher, helping obscure many pedestrians from view”.

January 2025: Mr X’s complaint to the Council

24. Mr X contacted a senior council member about his concerns in January 2025. He said:

• when he moved into the house, laurels and conifers along the bank screened his home from the road. The Council later cut back the conifers and put a footpath along the top of the bank without any notice to residents;
• the Council agreed to erect a fence to screen their homes from the footpath and road in response to residents’ concerns about their major loss of privacy. It also agreed to carry out some secondary planting to thicken the hedge, but did not do this;
• some years later the Council removed the conifers. The fence was left as the only screening. But it has not been maintained and sections have blown down. His home is now totally exposed to people using the footpath and lights/noise from the road, causing a loss of privacy and amenity; and
• he wanted the Council to replace the fence and carry out replanting.

February 2025: The Council’s actions in response to Mr X’s contact

25. The Council asked the relevant team to look into Mr X’s concerns. The team provided its comments in February 2025, including that:

• the fence was showing its age and no longer fit for purpose. Rotten posts and collapsed sections posed an unacceptable risk to highway users. The replacement cost was prohibitive and would require extensive engineering solutions to be sustainable;
• it had not been provided with any documents showing the Council was obliged to maintain or replace the fence;
• large whip planting was caried out at the top of the embankment years ago. It was not possible to plant larger standard trees due to the gradient and proximity to the pavement;
• a streetlighting upgrade scheme would install lamp heads with negligible light spill;
• temporary fencing was erected to protect the land until a solution was identified and clarity obtained on the fence management. It had now been removed. Pedestrians had an accepted level of risk and responsibility to stay on the footpath and there were no reports of injury; and
• the current habitat offered ecological value and new planting succession over the previously low value conifer trees.

26. The team also carried out a site visit. It noted:

• the whip planting establishment and trees planted were high. The unplanted vegetation (bramble) was also regrowing and provided a visual barrier. This screening would only get higher over time. No more planting was necessary;
• it had told the councillor and Mr X at the site meeting it would not plant leylandii and it was not possible to provide immediate screening with other planting; and
• there had been no change in the situation. It was not possible to take any other action without significant engineering.

27. The team concluded, in the absence of any documents identifying the Council had an ongoing obligation to maintain and replace the fence, there were no grounds to challenge its decision not to do so.

April 2025: Mr X’s further complaint to the Council

28. I haven’t seen any evidence the Council provided Mr X with its response to his January 2025 contact about his concerns.
29. In April Mr X chased the Council for its reply to his complaint. He said he had asked for a response a number of times.
30. The Council said it could not find a complaint logged for him. It asked him to re-submit his complaint, which he did.
31. The Council did not respond to the complaint and Mr X then brought it to us in August 2025.

September 2025: Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

32. The Council issued its complaint response on 3 September. It said:

• the fence was showing its age, not fit for purpose with sections collapsing and posed an unacceptable risk to highway users. The replacement cost of about £20,000 was prohibitive and would require extensive engineering solutions to be sustainable, which the Council was not willing to entertain;
• it had not been presented with any documents identifying an obligation on the Council to maintain or replace the fence or trees; 
• there was no fence between the opposite side of the road and adjacent houses. Councils were not obliged to provide screening from voices and smoke or privacy for properties adjacent to elevated highways and footpaths; and
• large whip planting was carried out at the top of the bank as a gesture of goodwill without obligation. Site visits showed its establishment, providing increased visual screening and a deterrent to access as it grew.

33. The Council confirmed it would not take any further action and there was no obligation for it to do so.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

34. The Council told us it had no record of a complaint by Mr X in January 2025. The first complaint logged on its system was in response to his contact in April 2025.
35. It acknowledged the delay, after it logged Mr X’s complaint in April, providing its response. It said it had been unable to respond to the complaint within the appropriate timescale because of system issues and officer leave. It accepted Mr X had to chase it for a response and it failed to update him about this.
36. With regard to its decision-making process, the Council said:
1. it had not found any record of an agreement or obligation to maintain the fence;
2. vegetation on the bank was established and with onset of the growth season, its height would increase significantly and provide further screening well above head height;
3. taking further action to reinstate an unnecessary fence, at great expense to the taxpayer would be unreasonable, unjustifiable and create an unsustainable legal precedent;
4. the erection of any man-made structure like a fence would use large amounts of carbon to produce the timber and install. A natural native planting screen would absorb carbon for generations to come, offer year-round foraging for fauna and more adaptable nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. The scheme delivered biodiversity and ecological net gain;
5. pollution, light spill and noise were not above the accepted risk levels for any urban property near a class 4 residential area urban highway; and
6. there were no recorded incidents of falls or injury on the bank. Access to the bank was now inhibited by habitat enhancement replacement planting. The pavement was safe and passable and posed no risk to justify further intervention.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s decision-making process

37. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
38. I have looked at the process the Council followed in response to Mr X’s concerns about its decision not to replace the fence.
39. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered Mr X’s concerns, whether it had any ongoing obligation to maintain or repair the fence and the impact of not replacing the fence on:
1. residents’ privacy;
2. the risk to residents’ health and well-being from light, noise, and air pollution;
3. safety of pedestrians using the footpath; and
4. the objectives of its environmental, climate and nature emergency policies and the environmental implications of its decision.
40. My view is the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns together with the relevant information before concluding it did not have any ongoing obligation to maintain and replace the fence, and there was no other reason for it to change its decision not to do so.
41. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with this, but I have not found fault with the way in which the Council made this decision.

The Council’s complaint handling

42. There were failures in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint.
43. Although it investigated the concerns he raised with it in January 2025, it failed to follow this up with a response to Mr X.
44. There was then an unreasonable delay of some four months in providing a response to Mr X’s further contact about his complaint in April 2025, and a failure to update him about the reason for the delay.
45. These failures were fault, causing Mr X frustration and uncertainty about the outcome of his complaint.

Back to top

Action

46. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its complaint handling failures and the frustration and uncertainty these caused him. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman