Summary: The complainant says the Council incited his neighbours to report him to the Police. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council incited his neighbour to report him to the Police. He wants:
• The officer disciplined and retrained
• A refund of the £450 he paid the Council as part of his complaint about his neighbour’s high hedge
• An apology
• Pay him £1,080 for the legal fees he has incurred
• Pay him £1,000 compensation to damage to his garden caused by shade and moss
• Revisit his neighbour and measure their hedge again

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is involved in a dispute with his neighbour arising from issues with his neighbour’s high hedge.
5. He says he sought and obtained information from the Council to support his upcoming court case against his neighbours.
6. Mr X says the information the Council provided shows a Council officer colluded with his neighbour and incited them to report Mr X to the Police.
7. The information is an email dated 28 November 2018 from Mr X’s neighbours to a Council officer asking for advice about the high hedge remedial notice they had received. The email includes an incidental remark which says:

“You were right that I should have spoken to the Police a long time ago.”

8. The officer’s response concerns only the high hedge query and does not mention the remark made by the neighbour.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. In its response, the Council says it has spoken to the officer concerned who has no precise recollection of a conversation that may have taken place two years ago.
10. However, the Council believes the neighbours may have spoken to the Officer who would have given information advice. It would have been up to Mr X’s neighbours to decide whether to report Mr X to the Police for a particular reason. The Council also confirmed no contemporaneous notes were made about the conversation between the neighbours and the Officer in 2018.

Assessment

11. There is no requirement for council officers to keep written records of every conversation they have with members of the public. If the Officer had told the neighbours, they could report their concerns to the Police I do not consider this is evidence of incitement or collusion. The decision to report Mr X was made by his neighbours, not the Council.
12. It is unlikely that, in the absence of written evidence, that further investigation by the Ombudsman will add to that carried out by the Council.
13. The Ombudsman cannot require councils to take disciplinary action against the employees. The law prohibits him from being involved in personnel matters.
14. Nor can we order the Council to pay his legal fees or compensation for his neighbours’ actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman