Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over a neighbour’s high trees and shrubs which she says are affecting her property. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Miss X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complained about the Council failing to take action against her neighbour under the High Hedges procedure which is part of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. She says there are two large trees on the boundary which could fall and endanger her life and her property. She also says they block light and the roots are affecting the boundary.

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 would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X complained to the Council in 2019 about trees on her neighbour’s boundary which she says are too high and dangerous. They also block the light to her property contrary to the High Hedges legislation. The Council asked her for further information and subsequently carried out a desk top consideration using satellite images. Miss X says she believes the Council misidentified the trees in question but the images it sent to us do not confirm this is the case. The Council asked her to provide further details if she disagreed with its view.
5. In January 2020 she complained that the Council was still not taking action. The Council wrote to her again and told her that it would require further details from her about the species of trees. It accepts that there was some delay in responding to her complaint but that its Tree Officer had responded in 2019.
6. In May the Council concluded its complaint investigation and agreed that a site visit would be undertaken to assess the type of trees and whether they fell within High Hedges legislation. If the Council decides the trees are a qualifying hedge but decides not to serve a remedial notice on the neighbouring owner, Miss X will be entitled to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which is the proper authority to consider such appeals.
7. I do not consider that the initial delay in progressing her complaint following the Tree Officer’s report has added any significant injustice to Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Miss X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman