Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to respond properly or take effective action in response to reports about overgrown vegetation. Mrs B is registered blind and walks into brambles and has spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to get the matter resolved. The Ombudsman has found some fault by the Council but does not consider this has caused a significant injustice requiring a remedy above the completed work, apology and explanation already provided by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complains the Council has failed to respond properly or take effective action in response to reports from May 2018 about a nearby bank which is overgrown with vegetation and brambles. Mr B has made the complaint and reports on Mrs B’s behalf.
2. Mrs B says because of the Council’s fault, she walks into the brambles as she is registered blind and both she and her husband have spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to get the matter resolved.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers provided by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr B. I have explained my draft decision to Mr B and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.
8. Mr B said there had been problems with overgrown vegetation from 2014. Mr B did not complain to the Ombudsman until May 2019. A complaint about the historical issues would be caught by the restriction set out at paragraph 5 above. However, as the matter was ongoing I exercised the discretion available to me to investigate events from May 2018.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council has provided a copy of its Highway Inspection Manual. This document provides that defects that meet the stated investigatory criteria will be assessed against a risk assessment matrix to decide the degree of risk they may pose to a highway user and the appropriate response. The Council says this Manual was developed taking into account all highway users, including: drivers, pedestrians (including those with visual impairments), cyclists, mobility impaired users and other vulnerable users.
10. The Manual sets out specific information and measurements about obscured visibility and overgrown hedges and bushes. The manual when referring to dangerous or obstructing trees suggests an obstruction would be when the clear passage pf pedestrians or cyclists by forcing them off the footway/cycleway or reducing the vertical clearance above the footway to less than 2.1m or 2.5 on a cycleway. It also refers to obscured visibility and overgrown hedges and bushes and says an obstruction is when users are forced off the footway/cycleway or reducing the vertical clearance above the footway to less than 2.1m or 2.5 m on a cycleway.
11. Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 allows highway authorities to take action about vegetation or trees overhanging the highway. This allows it to remove growth which could injure pedestrians, damage vehicles or obscure signs, signals or street lighting. The powers are limited to growth which crosses over the highway boundary.
12. The Council has provided details of Mr B’s reports to it on his wife’s behalf about overhanging vegetation from May 2018. Mr B reported brambles overhanging the pavement towards the end of July 2018 and that his wife who was blind had been scratched by them. The Council closed this report in mid-August as works had been completed. The Council has not provided any evidence of this work but I note Mr B did not contact it again until the following year. On balance, I consider the Council completed works.
13. Mr B reported further obstruction from vegetation in early April 2019. The Council says it inspected the site the following day but there is no evidence of any other action.
14. Mr B made a complaint to the Council towards the end of April about the time it was taking to respond to his report. The Council then contacted the landowner to ask it to ensure vegetation overhanging the highway was kept under control or removed. The Council decided the works required immediate action due to the risk of injury and so completed the works directly.
15. Mr B says the landowner told him they completed the works. The Council has provided photographs which show the overgrown vegetation obstructing the pavement before the works and following the works to remove the overgrown vegetation to show a clear footway. I do not consider further investigation on this point is worthwhile as there is no dispute the works were completed.
16. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint and provided an apology. The Council noted there had historically been some confusion about the maintenance responsibility for the vegetation he had reported. The Council confirmed that before 2013 it owned the land and had maintenance responsibility. The land was now the responsibility of the private landowner which was an Academy Trust. The Council explained that the relevant legislation meant it would normally give the landowner 14 days to complete the works other than in an emergency. The Council accepted there had been a delay in contacting the landowner until 23 April when the vegetation was cut back. The Council confirmed the area of the vegetation was the responsibility of the registered landowner and they had advised the landowner of their ongoing responsibility.
17. There was some delay here by the Council which is likely to constitute fault but I note the Council has provided an apology to Mr B and completed the works directly rather than providing the landowner with a 14 day notice. In the circumstances, I do not consider this delay caused Mr B or his wife a significant injustice requiring a further remedy.
18. The Council has also confirmed there is a section of vegetation on land which is unregistered. The Council will not complete regular planned maintenance of this area as it is not the landowner. However, it will respond to reports of safety defects including obstruction from overhanging vegetation. The Council did say it would complete a more significant cut back of the vegetation on the unregistered land to alleviate further issues but this would take time as it needed to complete an ecological assessment and ensure unobstructed access.
19. Mr B sought information about the land ownership from the Council in May. The Council provided the relevant lease and Land Registry documents to Mr B in May which confirmed the position it had set out.
20. Mr B reported overhanging branches in mid-August and early September. The Council confirmed it had completed works in September. The Council received no further reports following this work.
21. The Council has confirmed the unregistered area of land at this location is monitored by routine highway safety inspection on a 6 monthly basis. The Council completed the last inspection in November 2019 where it identified three highway safety defects none of which related to vegetation.
22. The more significant cut back work referred to above had not been completed by January 2020 when the Council responded to my enquiries. This delay is excessive and would constitute fault. However, in responding to my enquiries the Council re-visited the site in December 2019 and found no issues requiring action. The Council has provided photographs from this inspection. These show brambles on the grass bank above a wall but none encroaching across the pavement and the hedging around the corner as not obstructing the footway. In the circumstances, I do not consider any delay in completing the more significant cut back work has caused Mrs B or her husband an injustice. However, the Ombudsman would expect this work to be completed as soon as practicable.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation as although there was some fault by the Council I do not consider this has caused Mrs B or her husband a significant injustice requiring a remedy in addition to the completed works, explanation and apology already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman