Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the application process and outcome of a high hedge complaint. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating and the complainant has the right to appeal against the outcome to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. Mr X says there was a delay in the Council issuing a remedial notice to his high hedge complaint and is dissatisfied with the terms of the notice. He also complains about the delay in the Council dealing with his complaint.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains there was a delay in the Council processing his application and issuing the remedial notice. The Council apologised for the delay, refunded his fee and made a symbolic payment. So, we will not investigate this point as there is nothing more we could achieve.
7. Mr X disagreed with the terms of the remedial notice. We will not investigate this point as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) about the content of the notice. (Section 71, Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003)
8. Mr X is dissatisfied with how the Council handled his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. So, we will not investigate this point.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to use his right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and there is nothing more we could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman