Summary: Mr D says the Council delayed handling his high hedge application. We have found evidence of substantial delays by the Council. We have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress and implement procedural guidance for staff.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed handling his high hedge application from 2022 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and case records.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 23 May 2022 Mr D submitted a high hedge application to the Council relating to trees at a neighbouring property. Mr D subsequently chased up the Council about progress on the case (I do not have a date of that contact). On 12 August the Planning Services Manager (Manager) emailed Mr D and apologised for the delay responding and lack of communications from the Council. He said the Officer dealing with the case would need to visit adjacent properties to make a full assessment. The Manager would discuss with Officer and agree a timeframe to finish the assessment and to bring the matter to conclusion. I do not have a note any discussion between the Officer and the Manger or any agreed timeframe.
7. On 15 August the Officer wrote to the hedge owner (owner) that he needed to visit the property. On 5 September Mr D asked the Council for an update and he repeated that request on 13 September. The Council replied that it aimed to visit soon. On 23 September the Officer noted they had not heard from the owner. They had visited adjacent properties and needed to discuss the case with the Manager. On 10 October the Officer visited Mr D’s property. On 14 October the Officer left the Council. There is no record any action on the case for the rest of the year.
8. It appears Mr D continued to chase up the Council because on 26 January 2023 the Council decided to refund Mr D’s high hedge application fee (£350) due to the “time taken to process” the application. A new letter and questionnaire were sent to the owner, restarting the process. On 15 March the Council checked with its legal team because the owner had not responded. It was agreed to give the owner until the end of March and if no reply was received the Council should proceed with the case. On 31 March Mr D asked the Council for an update if it would now lower the trees. On 2 April the Manager asked Officers to move the case on including considering the impact of the trees and drafting a report. On 3 April an Officer visited Mr D’s property to assess the trees. They produced a report on 19 April recommending that action should be taken. The Council asked its legal team to produce a Remedial Notice. On 16 May the Council issued the Remedial Notice to the owner. It had a deadline for the end of September.
9. On 5 October Mr D contacted the Council, the deadline had expired on the Remedial Notice, and he wanted to know what the Council would do next. The Council says it was in contact with its legal team from 5 to 11 October about whether it could carry out remedial works in default. I have no record of any action on the case from mid-October until January 2024.
10. I Mr D continued to pursue the Council about the lack of action in the case. This prompted the Council on 24 January 2024 to contact its Woodland Officer about carrying out works in default. On 25 January the Manager emailed Mr D. He again apologised for delay. The case had been discussed with the legal team and the Council would need to use powers of entry to do works in default at the neighbouring site. This meant the Council had to give notice to the owner and establish suitable dates to carry out the works. The Manager corresponded with the Woodland Officer at the start of February about the works in default. The Council agreed access with the owner in February and on 28 February it carried out works in default and reduced the height of the trees at the site.

What should have happened

11. At present the Council does not have a formal approved written process guide for Officers on how to process a high hedge application.
12. Government guidance, “high hedges complaints: prevention and cure”, sets out the general process a council should follow. It says that once a council is satisfied the application is valid it should invite the owner’s comments. An Officer will carry out a site visit and decide if the hedge (or high trees) adversely affect reasonable enjoyment of the applicant’s home and garden. If a council decides action is needed it will issue a Remedial Notice to the owner setting out the works required and the timeframe to complete. If the works are not carried out by the owner once the compliance deadline expires a council can consider carrying out the works in default, which means they use either their own staff or an approved contractor.
13. The guidance says there are “no set deadlines” for handling an application. However, it advises that a decision on an application should not be expected for at least 12 weeks from receipt of the application.

Was there fault by the Council

14. There is evidence of significant delay by the Council in this case.
15. The Council has told me that it accepts it was responsible for some periods of delay. The initial handling of the case in 2022 was “not completed…correctly at the outset”. This meant the Council had to restart the process in January 2023. In addition, the Council recognises there were delays seeking guidance from its legal team in the autumn of 2023. I welcome that recognition of fault, but I set out below all of the failings I have identified during this investigation.
16. As the Council accepts, the correct process was not followed when the Council received Mr D’s application in 2022. There was delay from the outset. The application was received in May, and it took nearly three months for an Officer to write to the owner requesting a visit. There were a further two months taken to visit Mr D. The Officer left the Council in October and there was no further action taken until January 2023. The Council says it had severe staff shortages at the time. The Ombudsman is aware of the pressures placed on services and the impact of being understaffed. However, that does not alleviate the duty placed on the Council to administer an application following the correct process and in a timely manner. In 2022 the Council failed to do both.
17. In January 2023 the Council restarted the application process because contact from Mr D led to the Manager recognising the application had previously been mishandled. The Council progressed the case and served the Remedial Notice in May. However, there were further delays once the deadline for compliance expired at the end of September. I cannot see that any significant action was documented by the Council from mid-October until three months later in January 2024 and then only after prompting by Mr D. In 2024 the case was moved on at a better pace and works completed by the end of February.
18. Whilst there are no set timeframes for handling a high hedge application it is reasonable for an applicant to expect an outcome within six months at the latest for most cases. In this instance it took the Council 21 months from receipt of the initial application. I consider there to be a delay of 15 months by the Council which is clearly unacceptable.

Did the fault cause an injustice

19. The fault by the Council meant Mr D was put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing his case. It was only because of his persistence that matters were progressed. He had to wait 15 months longer to have the tree height problem resolved.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. It is positive the Council has already refunded Mr D’s application fee. It is also in the process of drafting guidance for Officers on how to deal with applications. However, in order to remedy the injustice caused to Mr D I asked the Council to consider:
• paying Mr D £150 for time and trouble
• paying Mr D £300 for delay
21. The Council has agreed to the redress and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions. The redress should be paid within a month of the case closing and the Council should subsequently confirm when the process guide is in place.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman