Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about delay by the Council cutting back a hedge. This is because an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Council delayed cutting back a hedge next to his property. Mr C says this work needed to be done before his gardeners would be doing work in his garden. Mr C complains the Council has refused to reimburse the money he paid his gardeners to cut back the hedge. Mr C would like the Council to reimburse these costs of £180 and pay him compensation for his distress and inconvenience.

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 an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr C.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council had planned to undertake routine twice yearly maintenance work to the hedge that is next to Mr C’s property in September or October 2025. The Council had not done this work by the time Mr C’s gardeners came to do work in his garden on 22 November 2025. The Council missed two time targets during this period.
6. The Council has apologised for the delays doing this work to the hedge and has said it has raised this issue with its contractor.
7. This was a suitable response from the Council.
8. It was not unreasonable for the Council to refuse Mr C’s request for his gardener’s costs to be reimbursed. In the context of routine seasonal maintenance work, the Council’s delay was not excessive. And, although Mr C had told the Council of his intention to instruct his gardeners to do the work if necessary, the Council had not given Mr C permission to do this or said it would reimburse his costs.
9. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman