The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the presence of Japanese Knotweed on a site near Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not done enough to resolve the problem of Japanese Knotweed on a site near his home and that it should take steps to ensure its complete eradication.
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 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A condition attached to a planning permission for a site near to Mr X’s home required the developers to provide a method statement about the removal of Japanese Knotweed from the site. The statement approved by the Council required herbicide monitoring to take place after the removal so that any regrowth would be observed and treated.
Mr X contacted the Council concerned that the work had not been done properly and that the Knotweed might appear in his garden.
The Council investigated and told Mr X monitoring was taking place. It engaged directly with the company dealing with the monitoring works on behalf of the developer which advised that due to the presence of trees some areas on the site had been treated with herbicide rather than excavation as the eradication strategy required. The Council told Mr X that while this was a breach of condition because the work had not been carried out exactly as the approved statement required, it had satisfied itself that this alternative method was acceptable and that appropriate monitoring would be undertaken and would continue until there was no further regrowth in any area for two years.
While Mr X is understandably concerned about any impact the Knotweed might have on his property, the Council has investigated and satisfied itself that what is being done is acceptable and that no enforcement action is required. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and we cannot question the merits of it. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision and we will not investigate the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman