Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove overgrown vegetation which is a risk to highway users. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that whilst walking he and his wife were almost hit by a startled wild pony, which had caused a motorist to perform an emergency stop, after emerging from overgrown roadside brambles. Mr B says the Council has failed to take action about this overgrown vegetation in response to his concerns and he is worried there will be a serious incident. Mr B would like the Council to remove brambles and bushes in this area to improve visibility so road users can travel safely.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says:
• it has investigated Mr B’s concerns and has decided no action will be taken at the moment;
• this location does not meet the criteria set out in the Council’s safety standards for vegetation clearance;
• this area is part of the New Forest where vegetation is generally managed by roaming animals which are allowed to roam freely;
• this is a unique environment and there are many locations where roadside vegetation may obscure visibility;
• motorists must adjust their driving to accommodate the unexpected movements of semi-feral animals in the area; and,
• it will continue to monitor the site as part of scheduled highway safety inspections.
6. As a local highways authority, the Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways and carry out maintenance where necessary. But importantly, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for intervention is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
7. It is for the Council to decide how best to manage vegetation along the highway in this unique location. The Council has looked into Mr B’s concerns and has explained why it will not be taking any further action at the moment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr B’s complaint. And, it is not our role to tell the Council it should be managing the highway network in this area differently.
8. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman