on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 17 Mar 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of trees on a highway, and how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to maintain the highway by leaving verges obstructed by overgrown trees. He said the overgrown trees severely restrict visibility at a busy junction, which has caused him considerable stress and anxiety when using the road. He wanted the Council to maintain the trees four times a year during growing season, or remove the trees.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council in April 2025 to report overgrown trees on the public highway.
The Council treated Mr X’s correspondence as a service request and told him the trees were due to be cut back in July 2025. The Council continued to correspond with Mr X and told him in June 2025 the trees in question had been cut back.
Mr X complained to the Council that it did not treat his correspondence as a formal complaint.
The Council considered Mr X’s complaint about how it had responded to his correspondence. In its complaint response, the Council apologised to Mr X for not initially telling him it had treated his correspondence as a service request. The Council clarified that its complaints policy allowed service areas to respond informally via a service request. This process was followed with Mr X’s complaint.
We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. The Council has taken the steps it considers necessary to deal with the issues Mr X raised and it is not for us to say it must do more.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council told Mr X when maintenance of the trees in question was due to take place, and updated him when the works had been completed. The Council treated Mr X’s complaint about the matter in line with its complaints policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman