Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failure to maintain land bordering the complainant’s home. The complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council is failing to carry out routine maintenance as agreed on land bordering his home. He wants it to maintain the land twice a year without him having to send reminders.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council owns an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) which maintains its housing.
6. In 2013 the ALMO told Mr X that it owned the land bordering his property. It agreed to maintain the land twice a year, ensuring any encroaching vegetation is cut back.
7. In 2020 Mr X contacted the Council, concerned that it had not carried out the agreed maintenance. The ALMO contacted Mr X confirming that it did not own the land. It says the arrangement made in 2013 was an error. It advised it would no longer carry out maintenance as previously agreed and had passed the matter to the Council’s forestry team.
8. The Council says its forestry team inspected the site in July 2020 and decided there are no significant issues with any trees along the boundary. It told Mr X it would inspect the site again in early 2022.
9. Mr X wants the Council to maintain the site twice a year as agreed by the ALMO in 2013. However, the Council has confirmed that it owns the land, not the ALMO and the officers had no authority to enter the agreement in 2013. I consider therefore, Mr X has benefited from work carried out in error for some years.
10. However, the ownership has now been proved and the Council has inspected the site. Its officers are satisfied the trees on the boundary do not need work. Mr X can cut back any vegetation overhanging his boundary.
11. Mr X also worries the weight of the vegetation may cause a landslip onto his property. The Council has advised that his property was built into the hillside and should have been designed in a way to support the adjoining land. The Council has also offered Mr X access to its land to carry out work to reduce the potential for future landslip, however Mr X has not accepted the offer.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Councils actions which has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. In fact, Mr X has benefitted from the Council’s error which has now been corrected. The ALMO does not own the land adjoining Mr X’s home and its officers had no authority to agree to maintain the land twice a year.
13. The Council has confirmed it owns the land and has established a new maintenance schedule. Mr X may disagree, but this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman