Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to respond to concerns about overhanging trees and bushes on a road at the rear of Mr X’s property. The Council has now issued a response to Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to prune the bushes to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to cut back trees and bushes that overhung a service road at the rear of his property. He wants the Council, or the School which the shrubbery borders, to cut back the growth. He said the Council had not responded to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If we were to investigate this complaint it is likely we would find the Council at fault as it failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint. We therefore asked the Council to issue a complaint response. The Council has sent Mr X a stage one response. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response. I am satisfied that apology remedies any injustice caused to Mr X by its initial complaint handling.
7. We will also not investigate Mr X’s substantive complaint to the Council about the lack of pruning of the overhanging shrubbery. In the Council’s response, it said the trees were not overhanging a public highway. It said it did not own the road to the rear of his property. It said it was a private alleyway, and the responsibility was the property owner who borders that part of the alleyway. It said any overhanging trees from the School were a private matter between Mr X and the School.
8. As the Council does not own the road and it is not a public highway, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision not to cut back the shrubbery to investigate further. The trees grow on the School’s property. The School has decided not to cut back the shrubbery. Although Mr X is unhappy with that decision, we cannot investigate the actions of schools.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council failed to respond to his complaint about overgrown shrubbery. We will not investigate Mr X’s substantive complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to cut back the trees and bushes to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman