Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a hedge overhanging a footpath because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has not required a neighbour to fully cut back a hedge which he says is overhanging the pavement.
2. Mr Y says this means his grandchildren struggle to use the pavement and he often gets wet when passing the hedges in the rain.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council about a neighbouring property having not cut their hedge back fully to ensure that it did not overhang the pavement. The Council carried out a stie visit to inspect the area. It found that although there was a small amount of overgrowth, cutting back the hedge any further would risk killing the plant entirely. It also said that given it was a low risk to the public and the footpath of the other side of the road was unobstructed, it would not require further work to be done to the hedge. Mr Y was dissatisfied with this and approached us.
7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
8. In this case, the Council has considered the matter in accordance with the approach set out in its policy, which it has referred to and fully explained to Mr Y in its complaint response. From its explanation, it has shown how it has considered the risk to the public and how it has decided not to act in this case. It has also explained that Mr Y can use the other side of the road’s footpath instead if he has any difficulty. As the Council has considered the matter and based on relevant factors made its decision not to act in accordance with its policy, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman