Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council charging her £350 for investigating a high hedges complaint against her neighbours. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complained about the Council asking her to pay £350 for an investigation under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 about a high hedge owned by her neighbour. She says the cost is unreasonable and that her solicitor has already carried out significant investigation work.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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 Mrs X submitted with her complaint. Mrs X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says her neighbours have grown a line of trees which could cause damage to her property and she wants the Council to serve a remedial notice on the neighbour under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 relating to high hedges. She asked the Council for an application and she was informed that there is a fixed fee of £350 for the service which she considers too high. She has already paid a solicitor to undertake work on the problem and believes the Council should offer her a lower fee because of this.
5. The Council told her that the fee is not negotiable and that any work done by her solicitor is not relevant to its own investigation which must be impartial and consider all the circumstances.
6. The legislation relating to High Hedges investigations allows councils to charge a fee for a service which is not a statutory duty. There is no fixed amount of what is reasonable in the government guidance. In a sample of six councils of varying size and location in England the fees for this service ranged from £240 to £550. Most were similar to the fee charged by Mrs X’s council.
7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council has explained to Mrs X why it must charge the same fee to all service users and there is no evidence of fault in this. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the private dispute between the two parties and can only consider the Council’s role which must be impartial.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman