Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide information about the high hedge dispute process. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already provided a satisfactory response to the complaint, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our continued involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says he was given inaccurate information when he called the Council’s customer services team about his neighbour’s high hedge, and he has still not been told what the application fee includes/covers.
2. Mr X says he will have to live with the hedge for another year because of the delay in obtaining the correct information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman can 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 are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken or proposes to take, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which includes its complaint responses.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate, we need to consider various tests. These include the extent of the injustice caused to the complainant as a result of fault by the Council. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepts its customer services representative was unaware of the high hedge dispute process. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience this caused and said it would review its staff training. With reference to the first bullet point in paragraph 3 above, I consider this to be a satisfactory way to resolve this part of the complaint.
8. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman also said he had still not been told what he would get for the application fee. But the Council has since explained it covers the administration and assessment of the application, after which a decision is made. When assessing the application, the Council said it would weigh up all the issues involved and consider the case on its merits. Again, I find the Council has provided a satisfactory response to this part of the complaint. I also note there is information on the Council’s website about how to submit an application, and a link to Government guidance on how applications are assessed.
9. I appreciate Mr X may feel frustrated and inconvenienced by the time it has taken to obtain the information he requested, but I do not consider the extent of this injustice is so significant as to warrant our continued involvement in the case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the matter, and any residual injustice is not significant enough to justify us pursuing the complaint further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman