Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about hedge damage. This is mainly because there is not significant enough injustice to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is allowing its contractors to damage hedges by using blunt maintenance equipment. He also complains about the Council’s complaint handling and freedom of information (FOI) matters. Mr X says this has caused distress and disappointment and he has incurred expense.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. Mr X says the Council’s contractors use blunt equipment that damages hedges. He is concerned about the health of the hedges and the impact on biodiversity. I appreciate these matters are important to Mr X. However, it does not amount to significant enough personal injustice or raise significant enough public interest to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigating.
8. Mr X says he sought the opinion of a specialist organisation and wants the Council to reimburse his costs. It was Mr X’s choice to spend money on a matter that does not cause him significant personal injustice, with no indication the Council would reimburse him. For that reason, we will not pursue this point.
9. Mr X further complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
10. Mr X says the Council has failed to respond to his FOI requests. As referenced in paragraph 3, we will not comment on this part of Mr X’s complaint because we consider it reasonable for this to be taken to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner to decide the FOI matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman