Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the height of a fence. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation of the complaint. The Council provided a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Ms X by failing to notify her of the decision to reduce the fence height.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to reduce the height of a fence installed in her garden. Ms X says the lower fence does not meet the assessed needs of her child and puts them at risk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council carried out an occupational therapy (OT) assessment for Ms X’s child. The OT recommended that a fence be installed between Ms X’s and her neighbour’s property to reduce Ms X’s child’s anxiety about a neighbour’s pet.
7. The Council’s contractor installed the fence. The Council realised the fence exceeded one metre in height so would require planning permission. It therefore asked its contractor to replace the fence with a lower fence. The contractor installed a lower fence.
8. Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She said she felt discriminated against as the contractor did not notify her that it would be replacing the fence before carrying out the works. Ms X also said the lower fence placed her child at risk as they could climb it and leave the garden.
9. In response, the Council apologised to Ms X for the contractor’s failure to contact her before replacing the fence. It explained that the fence height must be reduced so it would not require planning permission. The Council also explained the OT recommendation for a fence was to reduce Ms X’s child’s anxiety about the pet, not to prevent them from leaving the garden.
10. An OT visited Ms X to assess whether the reduced height fence met Ms X’s child’s needs. The OT’s report said she considered the height of the fence was sufficient. She noted that the front of the properties did not have fences. She therefore considered it was likely the pet would be supervised and it would not make a difference if the height of the fence was increased. The OT also noted Ms X’s child did not have a history of absconding from the property.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the reduced height fence does not meet her child’s needs. The OT visited Ms X’s property so she could assess if the fence met the child’s needs. The OT’s report provides a reasoned explanation for her decision. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the OT made her decision to justify an investigation of the complaint.
12. The Council acknowledged its contractor failed to notify Ms X that it needed to replace the fence before carrying out the works. The Council’s apology is a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to her. An investigation would not achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that a reduced height fence met Ms X’s child’s needs. The Council provided a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Ms X by failing to notify her that it needed to reduce the height of the fence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman