Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council cutting a hedge outside Miss Y’s property without her consent. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council cut the hedge outside her property without her knowledge or consent and failed to carry out agreed solutions.
2. Miss Y says this has caused her distress and anxiety as her property was exposed and its security compromised.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; and
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss Y.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

6. The Council cut a hedge on Miss Y’s land without checking who the land belonged to or getting her consent.
7. Miss Y complained that cutting the hedge has exposed her property, compromising its security.
8. The Council admitted fault, apologised, agreed checks on ownership of land weren’t carried out before work started and recognised the impact on Miss Y’s security.
9. The Council told Miss Y it would ensure proper ownership checks of land are done before carrying out maintenance works in future.
10. The Council installed fencing panels to restore the boundary and improve security on Miss Y’s property. It also paid Miss Y £500 for the inconvenience caused. The Council also said it would put plans into place to restore the hedge to its original height.
11. Miss Y complained the Council should have replaced the hedge with saplings as it previously said it would, as weeds would not allow the hedge to grow.
12. The Council carried out an arboriculture (tree report) which advised not to replant the saplings as this had low success rate and to instead allow the hedge to grow back naturally. The Council decided therefore not to replant the hedge. The Council arranged monthly weed control to help the hedge grow back naturally.
13. Miss Y was not happy with inconsistencies of the weed control visits and the quality of the work. The Council apologised for this and offered extra bramble cutting and low pavement weeding in a gesture of goodwill.
14. Miss Y also complained the Council did not reply to emails in a timely manner. The Council admitted fault in this, apologised and agreed to ensure timely responses to emails. Miss Y complained this continued to happen. The Council apologised again and appointed a single point of contact for Miss Y to allow better communication.
15. The Council carried out detailed complaint investigations, is aware of and has accepted what the fault was. It considered the injustice to Miss Y by speaking with her and carrying out an arboriculture report. It has also put in place remedies to address the injustice. Therefore, we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.
16. The remedies the Council provided included; formal apologies, installing fencing, compensation for inconvenience and distress, monthly weed control until the hedge grew to a satisfactory size, and a commitment to service improvement and better communication. As the Council has fully considered the issues and put in place remedies for the injustice caused, further investigation wouldn’t lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman