Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to respond properly to his complaint about overhanging vegetation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s poor response to his request for it to clear overhanging vegetation from a road where he lives.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X made a request to the Council for overhanging vegetation from properties alongside the highway to be cleared. There is no footway on the road and he complained that the vegetation was at head height and inconvenience. The Council acknowledged his request but did not reply until 26 days later.
5. The Council told Mr X that it could not identify any overhanging vegetation which was a risk to highway users. It said that if this was identified it may deal with vegetation on council land but that private householders were required to cut back their own vegetation alongside the highway. Where a householder failed to remove vegetation a highway authority could write to them and warn them that action could be taken under the Highways Act 1980.
6. Mr X complained about the confusing nature of the complaints procedure and that the Council should have given more information about the difference between service requests and formal complaints. The Council has subsequently explained this to Mr X.
7. The Local Government Ombudsman is obliged to consider not only any fault which a complainant has alleged, but also the injustice caused to them as a direct consequence of that failure. In this case I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault which we would investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman