Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to enforce against his neighbour’s hedge, discriminating against him during that process, and not properly dealing with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process affecting the enforcement decision, including evidence of discrimination, to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property which has large trees in the back garden. He complains the Council:
1. incorrectly decided not to take action against a high hedge in his neighbour’s garden;
2. failed to correctly assess the height of the hedge and its impacts;
3. discriminated against him because of his age and ethnicity;
4. failed to properly consider his complaint.
2. Mr X says the trees block light from his garden and house, affecting his enjoyment of his property. He is distressed and frustrated at the situation and concerned the trees may fall on his property. He wants the Council to take action against the neighbour’s hedge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only go behind a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault it would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
7. From the date of Mr X’s complaint, it took the Council about four months to visit to assess the trees. That delay was fault. However, the trees would not have altered significantly in that time. The four months were autumn and winter ones when the trees would not be growing. The delay in visiting did not affect the outcome of the Council’s assessment of the trees.
8. There was also fault by the visiting officer, who initially said the neighbour’s trees would need to be four and a half metres tall to warrant Council enforcement when the relevant height was two metres. But the officer apologised to Mr X, and corrected the error before any final decision was made on the matter. This initial error did not affect the final outcome of the Council’s assessment process.
9. To assess Mr X’s concerns and decide whether enforcement action under the relevant high hedges legislation was justified, the Council visited the site and measured the trees. Officers took account of the land levels and determined the trees forming the hedge were about two metres high. They noted some parts of the trees were slightly taller than two metres. But officers determined that overall the hedge did not block light or views sufficiently to warrant action, so did not accept Mr X’s case.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here, which altered the outcome of that process, to warrant us investigating. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mr X has alleged the Council ignored other issues when assessing the trees, including his neighbour’s motivations, the neighbour’s ability to afford to pay for the trees to be pruned, and nuisance caused by overhanging branches. But none of these or the other issues he has raised form part of a high hedge assessment, so the Council not taking them into account was not fault.
12. Mr X alleged the Council discriminated against him because of his age and ethnicity while making its decision about the trees. The Council invited Mr X to provide evidence to support those serious allegations. The evidence Mr X has provided indicates officers used the information gathered during their assessment of the hedge and applied the tests from the relevant laws to reach their decision. There is not enough evidence of discrimination by the Council within its decision‑making process to justify us investigating this part of the complaint.
13. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his complaint. We do not investigate council complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which affected its decision regarding the hedge to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman