Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council allowing trees to be planted in neighbouring gardens, not contacting him when they were being planted, and it not dealing with his High Hedge complaint. Any complaints about events or Council processes while the trees were planted are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s High Hedge decision to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property bordering the ends of gardens owned by two other properties. He complains the Council:
1. allowed trees to be planted at the end of the neighbouring gardens, breaching various laws, regulations and policies;
2. failed to contact them at any time about the trees being planted;
3. is not dealing with the matter as a high hedge complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is no online record of a planning matter involving tree planting in either of the properties bordering Mr X’s garden. But even if there was a planning process involved, according to Mr X’s evidence the planting at each property occurred at least five years ago. Any complaint about the processes involved in the planting of the trees is late. Mr X could have raised a complaint about the trees’ presence at the time they were planted. There is no good reason for us to investigate this part of the complaint now. We recognise the trees will have grown over the years. But Mr X has sought action on the trees as they are now by applying under High Hedge legislation. The second part of the complaint is about how the Council dealt with that application. This happened within the last 12 months so is not late.
7. Under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, councils can consider complaints about high hedges. Councils are allowed to set and charge a fee for the service. Mr X submitted his complaint to the Council after he could not reach agreement about works to the trees with his neighbours. In response, the Council considered the information about the trees and compared it to the requirements of the 2003 Act. Officers determined the trees complained of did not fit the definition of a hedge as set down in the law. The Council declined to deal with the matter further and returned Mr X’s fee.
8. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. The Council considered the relevant evidence and the requirements of the 2003 Act to reach the view that it could not take the High Hedge process further. It was for officers to determine, on the evidence they gathered, whether they had grounds to proceed with the process. That was a professional judgement decision officers were entitled to take. We recognise Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the complaint about the planting of the trees is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s high hedge process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman