Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement decision on his neighbour’s hedges. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to enforce a remedial notice issued in 2022. He says this has resulted in trees pressing against his retaining wall, blocking light and branches spread across half of his garden. He would like the Council to enforce the remedial notice against the neighbour to reduce the height of his neighbour’s hedge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a remedial notice in 2022 asking for the hedge to be cut down to 3.4 metres. Mr X complained the neighbour did not comply.
7. It is up to the Council whether to take enforcement action. They decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action, noting advice at the time to allow a maximum height of 6.1 metres with 0.8 metres for growth. It decided it would ask the neighbour to reduce the height of the hedge to 5.3 metres. The Council was entitled to make this decision. We cannot question the merits of a properly made decision. The Council considered the information available and decided whether to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in its’ decision making.
8. The Council apologised for the error in the original remedial notice and said it would act to prevent reoccurrence. It refunded Mr X’s fee. We can not ask the Council to change its’ decision. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman