Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prosecute the person responsible for the unauthorised removal of hedgerow and widening of the road next to the complainant's home. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take legal action against a neighbour who removed hedgerow and widened the road next to his home without permission. Or to carry out work in default.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X including the Council’s responses to his concerns.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X told the Council about the unauthorised removal of hedgerow and widening of the road next to his home.
6. The Council confirms it wrote to occupiers of a neighbouring property who were suspected of carrying out the work. The letter required the person(s) responsible for the work to remove all material from the highway and return the verge to its original condition. It also advised that failure to carry out the required work may result in the Council taking further action. It confirmed this would likely mean the Council completing the work and passing the costs on.
7. Mr X complains the Council has not carried out the work and it has not prosecuted the people responsible for the unauthorised work.
8. The Council confirms it has visited the site. It has written to the local electricity provider advising them to ensure a recently exposed electrical cable is safe. However, it is satisfied the work is not causing any highway safety issues.
9. Mr X says the unauthorised work endangers the foundations of his stone wall surrounding his property. However, if his land or property has been affected this is a private matter between him and his neighbour for which the Council is not responsible.
10. The Council has no duty to prosecute the people who carried out the work. It has visited the site and decided it is not in the public interest to take legal action or carry out work in default.
11. While Mr X may disagree with this decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council came to the decision not to prosecute the person responsible for the unauthorised removal of hedgerow and widening of the road next to his home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman