Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to cut overhanging vegetation on her neighbour’s land which she says obscures her view of the traffic when exiting her driveway. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council telling her that it will not remove overgrown vegetation from her neighbour’s property. She says her access onto the highway is obscured by the growth and this is a road safety hazard.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(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 Miss X submitted with her complaint and she has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X lives near a bend on a main road. She says her access onto the highway is limited by vegetation on her neighbour’s garden which obscures the view of traffic on the highway. This means she has only a few seconds to decide when to join the carriageway. She asked the Council to take action to remove the vegetation for safety reasons using its powers under the Highways Act 1980.
5. The Council told her that it only has authority to require landowners to remove vegetation overhanging the highway. It cannot take action over matters on private land outside the highway boundary. Miss X disputed the Council’s interpretation of the legislation. The Council ‘s legal section confirmed that it could not act.
6. Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 allows highway authorities to take action over 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.
7. Miss X believes the Council could use powers under s.79 of the act to compel the neighbour to remove vegetation on his own land. The Council does not believe this is appropriate.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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.
9. Miss X has a problem with vegetation overhanging her land which is obscuring the view of the traffic when she exits her drive. This is not overhanging the highway and the Council has no authority to enter private land to remove it. We cannot provide a legal interpretation of the Highways Act legislation. Miss X would have to ask the courts to determine a point of law
10. There is no fault in this case because the Council says it cannot carry out the actions which Miss X demands.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman