Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against his neighbour’s tall fence. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making, nor sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter, to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X put CCTV on his property after an earlier incident of damage. His neighbour has installed a fence over two metres tall, next to the camera. Mr X complains the Council has:
1. failed to properly assess the situation with his neighbour’s fence;
2. failed to take action regarding the fence;
2. Mr X says the fence blocks the view of his camera, making it useless. He says that if future damage happens to his property, he would not be able to gather evidence of the incident. Mr X wants the Council to ask the neighbour to reduce the fence’s height.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; 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))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told the Council he was in dispute with his neighbour about the boundary marked by the tall fence, which was the subject of separate legal action. He advised officers that his concern was not that boundary issue but the height of the fence and the obstruction it caused to his CCTV camera.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns, officers considered the information he provided and decided the matter did not cause him such harm to justify them taking action. They determined the case was low priority, but they would monitor it accordingly.
8. We can only go behind a council decision where there is fault in its decision‑making process and, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. To reach its decision here, the Council considered relevant information about the fence and its impact on Mr X and his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there were fault by the Council here, the outcome with the fence does not cause Mr X sufficient injustice to justify us investigating. The width of the section of tall fence involved does not cause such significant impact to Mr X’s property’s amenity to give grounds to investigate. The CCTV camera’s field of vision has been reduced by the fence. But the camera may still record any incidents on Mr X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation; and
• the matter has not caused sufficient personal injustice to him to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman