Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider reports he made about overgrowth from hedges and trees affecting the highway. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with his reports about overgrown hedges and undergrowth affecting safety on roads local to where he lives. He complains the Council has not followed its policy or government guidance when deciding not to take action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Highways Act 1980

6. Section 154 of the Highways Act gives highway authorities the power to serve a notice on a land owner or occupier to require them to cut back trees or shrubs which endanger or obstruct the passage or view of drivers.

The Council’s Highway Safety Policy

7. Section 1.22 sets out when work will be required to overgrown hedges and bushes that affect the highway. It states that overgrown vegetation that obscures sightlines at bends, junctions or laybys is a defect. Vegetation that extends into the carriageway such as to obstruct the passage of highway users or where it forces users away from the nearside of the carriageway by more than one metre, or causes them to cross the centreline would also be an actionable defect.

What happened

8. On 18 January 2020 Mr X made two reports of overgrowth affecting the highway. He stated that branches protruded around 3 feet into the road and there was growth over the kerbstones at the side of the road. He stated hedges and brambles were not cut back properly so as to allow the use of the full width of the road. He stated some branches caused cyclists to swerve further into the road which was a safety issue.
9. The Council’s records show that two separate officers considered Mr X’s reports. The Council responded on 23 January and 6 February. The Council noted Mr X’s concerns but officers found that the vegetation was not obstructing vehicles or forcing them to cross the centre line of the road. The Council’s records noted no action would be taken but the situation would be monitored.
10. Mr X challenged the decision at the end of January and raised a formal complaint in February. Mr X stated this was a safety issue.
11. In March the Council reiterated its position. An officer confirmed that he had driven the road himself and he acknowledged the issues Mr X reported. He agreed that the road would benefit from being ‘ploughed’ to cut back the hedges and expose the road’s full width. However, he reiterated that the condition of the trees and bushes was not such that warranted action under its policy. As a result, the Council stated it would not be taking action. The Council stated it would consider cutting back the hedgerows along the road as part of routine maintenance work and if the situation worsened then swifter action would be taken.
12. As Mr X was dissatisfied, he brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.
13. The Council told us what action it had taken to consider Mr X’s reports. In addition to considering Mr X’s reports, the Council explained the road was subject to monthly safety inspections. It stated the work it told Mr X it would consider doing was now happening. It stated it would be cutting back the hedges as part of its annual work programme. This would most likely happen by the end of the year.

Was there fault by the Council

14. When we consider complaints we look at whether a council has properly investigated any issues being raised by the complainant and whether its approach is in line with its policy and any relevant legislation. If a council acts in accordance with its policy and reaches a decision having taken account of all the relevant factors, we are unlikely to find it was at fault. We cannot replace our judgement about what action a council should take with that of a council’s officers and we cannot question decisions a council has reached properly.
15. There is evidence that the Council did take action on the issues Mr X reported. The Council carried out inspections of the road in question and it responded promptly to Mr X to explain that it did not consider the overgrowth he reported was such that warranted action. It acknowledged that work may be needed as part of routine maintenance and it stated this would be considered as part of maintenance schedules, subject to funding. This work is now scheduled to happen.
16. While I recognise Mr X considered the overgrowth, in places, forced cyclists further into the road and affected visibility along the road, there is evidence Council has considered Mr X’s concerns. It decided the issues were not such that warranted immediate action. This was a judgement the Council’s officers were entitled to make following their own inspections. The actions the Council took and the decisions the Council made were in accordance with its policies. I have no grounds to question the outcome.
17. As there was no fault by the Council, I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman