The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding a hedge next to a property he owns. There is insufficient significant ongoing personal injustice to him from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. Investigation would also not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X owns a house with a Council-owned hedge between a road and the property’s boundary. Mr X complains the Council: incorrectly told him it would complete trimming works to the hedge; has incorrectly stated that its contractors completed the hedge trimming in December 2023; has refused to complete the works.
Mr X says he has had to pursue the complaint over many months, costing him time and causing him trouble, distress and worry. He says the height of the hedge also affects the property’s amenity, blocking light and causing shady, damp conditions for moss and lichen to grow.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, relevant online images and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Officers visited Mr X in spring 2023 to discuss the hedge work which would be done after nesting season in August. The Council says that work was completed in December. Mr X disagrees. The Council has accepted various faults in its handling of Mr X’s concerns, including delays in its contractors doing the hedge works and it having a relatively unsophisticated management system for scheduling works. Officers have confirmed its contractor will do future road-side work to the hedge in December 2024. The Council says it will review its approach to the hedge, decide what it will do with it in the longer term and let relevant parties know its decision and the future arrangements.
There has been Council fault in the management of the matter and its complaint process. It has apologised for those faults, which provides some remedy for them. But to pursue an investigation we must be satisfied that any unremedied personal injustice to the complainant is sufficiently significant to justify us doing so. We recognise Mr X has spent time and been caused trouble, distress and worry by the matter. But the Council’s apologies provided the remedy we would have sought for this injustice had we investigated. Mr X’s other claimed injustices are the effects of the hedge on his property’s amenity, blocking light and causing shady, damp conditions. Mr X owns but does not live at the property. Any injustice from reduction in the property’s amenity would be primarily to its residents, not to Mr X as a non-resident owner. If Mr X has tenants who are seeking a rent reduction due to the hedge, that would be a private contractual tenant and landlord issue. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the amenity impacts of the hedge to justify an investigation.
We recognise Mr X and the Council disagree on whether all hedge trimming has been done. Even if Mr X is correct and there are outstanding works to the hedge, such as work to reduce its height, this does not amount to a sufficiently significant injustice to him to warrant an investigation. As set out above, any impact on the house or garden from a higher or larger hedge is not a significant one for Mr X because he does not live at the property. If any of the work Mr X says is incomplete involves side hedge growth encroaching on to his property, he would be able to remove this and offer the cuttings to the Council, as long as the work does not damage the hedge.
We note the Council has confirmed it will be reviewing its future approach to the hedge and advising relevant parties, which would include Mr X, of its decisions. This, alongside the Council’s apologies, is the kind of outcome we would have sought had we investigated here. Investigating would not achieve a different outcome, so we will not do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is insufficient unremedied or ongoing significant personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman