Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that it is not liable for damage to the complainant’s fence. Nor its decision not to respond to the complainant’s correspondence. We have seen no evidence of fault. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to make a claim in court if he believes the Council is responsible for damage.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council:
• has ignored the Ombudsman’s decision on a previous complaint; and
• refuses to respond to his correspondence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to a previous complaint, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to trim a hedge as promised in autumn 2020, for providing incorrect information, and for failing to assess his claim of damage;
• Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the uncertainty he was caused by the faults identified above; and
• Assess and respond to Mr X’s claim of damage to his property by the Council’s hedge.
7. Council Officers visited Mr X’s home and discussed his claim of damage to his fence. The Officers took photographs.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s claim that its failure to maintain the hedge had damaged his fence. It noted the photos showed the fence is next to the inner side of the hedge which it says Mr X is responsible for.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X. It apologised for failing to trim the hedge, for providing misleading information and for failing to assess his claim for damage sooner. It also asked for his bank details so that it could make the £150 payment. It also explained that having inspected the site, it did not consider that it was liable for damage to the fence.
10. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s decision and continued to write to Officers. The Council’s solicitor wrote to Mr X confirming it considered his complaint closed. They advised they would not respond to any more correspondence on the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has made the required apologies, paid him £150 and visited the site to assess his claim of damage to the fence. Therefore, it has satisfied the agreed remedy for the previous complaint. There was no requirement for the Council to agree to pay for the damage claimed by Mr X.
12. It has also explained why it will not respond to any more correspondence on the same matter. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
13. Finally, Mr X can make a claim in the Small Claims Court if he believes the Council is liable for damage to his property. This is a relatively straightforward process and I do not consider it unreasonable for him to do this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman