Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint about vegetation growing in the footpath outside his house. This caused Mr X frustration and delayed its removal. The Council has agreed to arrange for the vegetation to be removed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to remove vegetation growing in the footpath outside his house causing a trip hazard. He also complained about the poor standards of communication from the Council causing him significant frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. The Council work in partnership with another organisation to provide highway services in East Sussex. The partnership is East Sussex Highways (ESH).
6. I have considered evidence provided by Mr X, ESH and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X, ESH 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 happened

8. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint.
9. In May 2024 Mr X contacted ESH to report vegetation growing in the footpath in front of his house. Mr X said the plant caused a trip hazard.
10. In July 2024 ESH said the vegetation was growing from Mr X’s garden and was therefore his responsibility. It issued him a notice to cut it back from the pavement.
11. Mr X continued to contact ESH and in November 2024 he made a complaint to the Council through its corporate complaints procedure. Mr X said he disagreed with ESH’s decision and its communication with him had been poor.
12. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in December 2024. It acknowledged communication had been poor but said the vegetation was Mr X’s responsibility.
13. Later in December 2024 Mr X advised the Council that ESH had been to cut back the vegetation. The Council made enquiries and told Mr X its previous decision was incorrect and the Council was responsible for the vegetation. The Council apologised to Mr X and told him ESH would remove the vegetation in January 2025.
14. Mr X contacted ESH during June and July 2025 as it had not removed the vegetation. He received no response to these enquiries.
15. In response to our investigation, the Council made further enquiries in November 2025. It has concluded from mapping data and photographs that the vegetation’s roots originate on Mr X's property, making it his responsibility.
16. The Council, in its response to us, acknowledged its errors and poor communication. It has outlined steps it has taken to improve its processes and complaint handling. The Council also said it will remove the vegetation at its own cost as a gesture of goodwill.

Findings

17. Mr X has been in contact with ESH regarding the vegetation since May 2024. The Council has failed to clarify with Mr X who should be responsible for its removal. This is fault.
18. In December 2024 the Council wrongly told Mr X removal of the vegetation was the Council’s responsibility. Between January 2025 and November 2025 ESH decided the vegetation was Mr X’s responsibility. However, there is no evidence to show it shared this decision with Mr X. This is fault and caused significant frustration for Mr X and further delay in the vegetation being removed.
19. There is evidence to show Mr X contacted ESH to try to resolve the issues but often received no response. In response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged its errors and the inconvenience to Mr X. ESH has told the Council it has made changes to its handover and communication processes to prevent a similar issue in the future. I am satisfied the actions taken will prevent a recurrence of the fault and so have not recommended any service improvements.
20. The Council has said it will remove the vegetation as a goodwill gesture.

Back to top

Agreed Action

21. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the service of the East Sussex Highways and make the following recommendations to the Council.
22. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. arrange the removal of the vegetation from the front of Mr X’s house.
2. apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by the Council’s faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman