Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about delays in enforcement action being taken against his neighbour because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to enforce a High Hedge Remedial Notice (HHRN) issued to his neighbour. He says administrative errors resulted in significant delays. Mr Y says his neighbour’s hedge caused significant hardship, preventing him from using his garden.
2. Mr Y also complains about the Council’s poor communication, and its failure to provide him with a clear enforcement timetable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal or government minister to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister.
6. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued Mr Y’s neighbour with a High Hedge Remedial Notice (HHRN) some years ago. Mr Y says the Council did this incorrectly, which resulted in significant delay. Mr Y’s neighbour appealed the decision, and the Planning Inspectorate (PI) issued its decision in 2022. The PI considered matters prior to its decision, including the Council’s handling of the HHRN, and therefore we cannot consider this. We will therefore only consider this complaint from the PI’s appeal decision issued in 2022.
10. The PI dismissed the appeal, instructing Mr Y’s neighbour to reduce the size of the hedge. It allowed them three years to comply with this. During this timeframe, the Council was unable to consider further enforcement action. I acknowledge the frustration this likely caused to Mr Y, and the prolonged injustice he faced waiting for his neighbour to comply with the HHRN. But the Council was not at fault for this, because it was unable to pursue enforcement action until 2025 in line with the PI’s appeal decision.
11. Mr Y’s neighbour failed to comply with the HHRN within the stipulated timeframe. The Council reconsidered its position in 2025 and decided to prosecute against them through the courts. From the evidence I have seen, the Council did provide regular updates to Mr Y about this. I accept the Council had to be cautious with how much information it provided to Mr Y, because legal proceedings were ongoing. Further delays occurred when the Council awaited a court date. Again, I acknowledge the impact this had on Mr Y. But I do not find the Council at fault for delays outside of its control.
12. Mr Y’s neighbour eventually complied with the HHRN, very shortly before the plea hearing was due to take place at court. The Council subsequently withdrew the prosecution, and communicated this with Mr Y.
13. Throughout this case, there were significant delays which resulted in prolonged injustice to Mr Y. However, I am satisfied these delays were not caused by the Council. The evidence shows the Council acted proactively and took appropriate enforcement and legal action within the scope of its powers. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman