Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her high hedge complaint and further corporate complaint she made about this. The Council was at fault when it wrongly returned her application form to her neighbour, delayed issuing a report following an inspection visit to her home and failed to respond to an appeal she made against its corporate complaint response. This has caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress. It also meant that Mrs X spent avoidable time and trouble in chasing the Council for updates and complaining to the Ombudsman. The Council offered to refund the £600 Mrs X paid for her high hedge complaint, and agreed to our further recommendations to address the outstanding injustice its actions have cased to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how long the Council took to respond to, and consider, her complaint about a neighbour’s high hedge, after she reported it in August 2019. She says the boundary hedge blocks light to her home and garden.
2. In particular, she complains that:
• after she originally sent her form about the high hedge to the Council in August 2019, it wrongly sent the form to the neighbour she was complaining about. This caused her avoidable distress. It also meant she was unaware for several months that the Council was not progressing her high hedge complaint application.
• after she made a new application in June 2020, the Council visited the site in October 2020. The Council did not issue its findings until September 2021, after she had complained to us. She says the delay was frustrating and the report failed to address all the issues.
• the Council’s handling of her report of the high hedge was poor and its responses late, as was its handling of her complaint about this. This meant that she had to chase the Council for updates and spent a lot of time and trouble in doing so.
3. Mrs X would like the Council to take action in response to her neighbour’s high hedge. The Council has offered to refund £200 of the £600 fee she paid but she feels it should refund the whole amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs X's comments;
• considered the comments and documents the Council provided to Mrs X.
7. Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

High Hedges

8. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (‘the Act’) gives councils powers to deal with high hedges considered anti-social.
9. The Act allows someone to complain to their local council if they consider a neighbouring hedge, because of its height, adversely affects their “reasonable enjoyment” of their home.
10. The law defines a ‘high hedge’ as one formed “wholly or predominately by two or more evergreens” and rising “to a height of more than two metres above ground level”.
11. The Act gives councils the power to serve a ‘remedial notice’ requiring the owner of a hedge to cut it back. However, before the Council does this it must consider:
• if the complaint is one it should accept; and
• if the hedge complained about is one that “is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment” of their home.
12. Remedial notices define how the hedge should be managed to give effect to the Council’s decision and restore a suitable balance between the amenity enjoyed by the complainant and the hedge owner. The remedial notice is relevant to the land in question rather than to an individual, so remains in force even if the land is sold. The remedial notice will explain the action needed and any further action to prevent the problem recurring.
13. The Council must take account of all views and relevant factors and assess each case on its own merits. The Council may order the hedge owner to remedy the problem by, for example, reducing the height of the hedge and maintaining it at the lower level.
14. In this case the Council agreed this was a high hedge in accordance with the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (the Act), and in September 2021 decided it should issue a remedial notice to Mrs X’s neighbour.

The Council’s corporate complaints procedure

15. The Council’s complaint procedure has two stages. The Council says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages in three working days. It will respond to stage one complaints in 10 working days and the appeal of stage one decisions in 28 working days. Where the complaint is complex, the Council might extend the timescale for a stage one response by another 10 working days. If the complexity of the appeal means the Council cannot reply within 28 working days, it will contact the complainant with the expected date of the reply. The Council’s procedure also explains it will always contact the complainant if there are changes to the standard response target.

What happened

16. Mrs X complained to the Council about her neighbour’s high hedge in August 2019.
17. The Council told us that in September 2019 it decided that Mrs X’s complaint was not valid, and sent her complaint form back to her. However, the Council wrongly addressed the letter to Mrs X’s neighbour, and she never received it.
18. Mrs X chased the Council for a response in November 2019. In the same month the Council sent her some more information about the high hedge complaints process, including a spreadsheet for calculating the actionable hedge height. It also told her that it had sent her complaint form back to her.
19. Between March 2020 and May 2020 Mrs X often communicated with the Council about how to best progress her high hedge complaint. She also asked the Council about its procedures with regards to responding to members of the public.
20. The Council replied and apologised for the delays in getting back to Mrs X’s communications. It said the response times were longer than usually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
21. In May 2020, the Council asked Mrs X to fill out another high hedge complaint form. She questioned this request and said that nothing had changed since she made the application in August 2019 and there was no point in her duplicating the same information. She also voiced her concern about not receiving the application from August 2019 back, despite the Council claiming it had posted this back to her. At the end of the month the Council agreed to use a copy of the August 2019 application to log a new high hedge complaint.
22. At the end of June 2020 the Council recorded a new high hedge complaint against Mrs X’s neighbour, and she paid the complaint fee of £600.
23. In June and August 2020 Mrs X corresponded with the Council to agree a date for a visit to her property.
24. The Council’s officer and an arborist (tree worker) visited Mrs X in early September 2020 to assess the high hedge. Mrs X chased the Council for an update on her complaint in late September and October 2020. In November 2020 the Council told her that it was preparing a report following the visit that took place in September.
25. In December 2020 Mrs X complained to the Council’s Managing Director about the handling of her planning complaint and the high hedge complaint.
26. In February 2021 the Council’s Managing Director responded and apologised for her experience with the Council’s services. He explained the Council mistakenly returned the form she submitted in August 2019 to her neighbour. In the same month Mrs X complained to the Council about the delays in considering her complaints.
27. The Council responded to Mrs X in March 2021. It apologised for the delays and said that it was still producing the report following the visit to her property in September 2020. It also apologised for sending her complaint form back to the wrong address. The Council told us that it did not realise this was the case until February 2021 when Mrs X submitted her complaint.
28. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, and she appealed against its original decision. She also said she was not satisfied with the delays in the Council’s responses to her communications.
29. The Council did not acknowledge Mrs X’s appeal request
30. At the end of May 2021 the Council issued its final response to Mrs X.
• It said it would not accept Mrs X’s appeal because it did not meet all the necessary criteria.
• It apologised for Mrs X’s experience.
• It said that it was still considering her high hedge complaint.
• It offered to refund £200 of the £600 she paid for her high hedge complaint.
31. In the same month Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s handling of her high hedge and corporate complaints.
32. At the end of September 2021 the Council issued its report detailing its decision about Mrs X’s complaint.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

33. The Council:
• accepted that Mrs X’s complaint took longer to consider than it should have done. Because of this delay the Council will refund the remaining £400 of her high hedge complaint fee;
• apologised for not communicating with Mrs X effectively to inform her of the difficulties officers were facing. The Council said it will reflect on this case to improve procedures for future high hedge complaints;
• explained the reasons for the delays, including workload pressures and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• said the original report was drafted in July 2021 but the Council needed to redraft this after it found an error. Around that time Mrs X suggested that her neighbour had cut the hedge again, and the Council felt it needed to check the hedge height. This resulted in further changes to the report and to the recommendation the Council made.

My analysis

The Council’s actions in August 2019

34. The Council accepted that in August 2019 it wrongly returned Mrs X’s high hedge complaint application to her neighbour. This is fault.
35. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress. It also meant she was unaware for several months that the Council was not progressing her high hedge complaint application, and we consider this contributed to the delays she has experienced.
36. Mrs X also spent avoidable time and trouble in chasing the Council for updates about this complaint.
37. We consider the Council should remedy the injustice resulting from this fault.

Delays in processing Mrs X high hedge complaint from June 2020.

38. The Council accepted that it took significantly longer to consider Mrs X’s complaint. This is fault.
39. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration. The Council has offered to refund the full complaint fee of £600. We consider this to remedy the injustice this fault has caused to Mrs X.
40. The Council told us that it will review Mrs X’s case to see if it can make improvements to its high hedge complaint handling process. We consider this to be a suitable remedy.
41. Mrs X has also complained that the report did not address all of the points of her complaint. We cannot consider the contents of the report, and we would expect Mrs X to exercise her appeal right if she disagreed with the contents of the report.

The Council’s handling of Mrs X’s corporate complaint

42. The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process. This is because it has followed its complaints policy.
43. However, it was at fault for how it handled her request for an appeal. The Council did not acknowledge her request for an appeal within three working days. It took 22 days to reply to Mrs X and tell her that it would not refer her complaint to a senior manager for consideration because her appeal was not valid.
44. At the same time, the Council apologised for the delays and offered a remedy which was not part of its original response to Mrs X’s complaint. We consider this to be contradictory. This shows that the Council did revisit its stage one decision, but at the same time said it would not consider Mrs X’s appeal request.
45. This has contributed to the avoidable frustration Mrs X experienced during the time the Council was considering her high hedge and corporate complaints.
46. The Council should remedy the injustice resulting from this fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. The Council will take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
• pay Mrs X £200 to recognise the distress the Council’s fault has caused her when it wrongly sent her application form back to her neighbour;
• pay Mrs X £200 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble she spent in chasing the Council for resolution of her complaints;
• repay Mrs X the £600 fee for her high hedge complaint application to recognise the distress and uncertainty the delay in considering her complaint has caused to Mrs X;
• share this decision with the Council officers dealing with high hedge complaints. It should emphasise the Council’s requirement to promptly acknowledge the appeal requests when made by members of the public; and
• review its high hedge policy/ procedure to ensure that complainants are informed of the progress of the case and to see if it can improve the process to make sure the complaints are completed promptly.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint. The Council was at fault when it wrongly returned her application form to her neighbour, delayed issuing a report following an inspection visit and failed to respond to the appeal she made against its complaint response. This has caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress. It also meant that Mrs X spent avoidable time and trouble in chasing the Council for updates and complaining to the Ombudsman. The Council offered to refund £600 Mrs X paid for her high hedge complaint, and we recommend further action the Council should take to address the outstanding injustice its actions have cased to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman