Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in responding to a high hedges complaint under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his application for a remedial notice against his neighbour whom he says refuses to cutback high boundary hedges which affect the daylight to his home. he says he paid the fee for the procedure in June 2023 and a notice it has not yet been issued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he asked the Council to intervene in a dispute with his neighbour over high hedges on his property boundary. Councils have a power to assess high hedges and if necessary serve a remedial notice on the landowner specifying what height hedges should be maintained. This is not a statutory duty and a fee must be paid by the applicant to use the service. Government guidance says that this procedure should only be used when all other means of communication with the neighbour have broken down.
6. Mr X paid the fee for the service in June 2023 and the Council sent an acknowledgement advising that it would arrange for site visits to Mr X and the neighbouring property. A decision would be made within 12 weeks of the site visits being completed. Mr X says he has not heard anything further.
7. We asked the Council to comment on Mr X’s complaint. It says that the site visits have taken place and the process of preparing the notice is with its legal advisors. There is no specific timescale in the legislation or the Government guidance for processing a remedial notice. Whilst it is clear that there has been some delay in the advisory timescale given to Mr X, we could not say there is evidence of fault because the process is ongoing and there is no failure of statutory duty.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in responding to a high hedges complaint under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman