The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms E complained the Council has failed to maintain the hedges near to her house. She also complained the Council failed to properly resolve the parking issues which means people are constantly parking in front of her house. We find the Council did not maintain the hedges as often as it agreed to do. It was also at fault for its record keeping. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to reflect the injustice caused by fault.
The complaint
Ms E complained the Council has failed to maintain the hedges near to her house. She also says it has failed to properly resolve the parking issues which means people are constantly parking in front of her house.
Ms E says the matter has caused a lot of stress and anxiety. She also says the Council’s failure to maintain the hedges has led to a rat infestation and she has had to pay a lot of money to maintain the hedges.
What I have investigated I have investigated Ms E’s complaint from July 2020 onwards. I have not investigated her complaint before this date for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Ms E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
Ms E and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Ms E says the Council has failed to maintain the hedges near to where she lives for many years. She also says it failed to implement sufficient parking restrictions, which means that people are constantly parking in front of her house.
The Council installed double yellow lines near to where Ms E lives in 2009.
The Council wrote to Ms E in September 2019 and said it would maintain the hedges at the side and back of her house three times a year.
Ms E contacted her MP in October 2020 and said the Council had cut the hedges in front of her house, but not at the back.
Ms E’s MP contacted the Council in December 2020. He said Ms E had reported people were leaving their cars on the double yellow lines. He also made it aware of the issues with the hedges.
The Council responded to Ms E’s MP in January 2021. It said it had designed a parking scheme to resolve the issues, and it aimed to consult with the public later that month. It said it hoped to implement the new parking restrictions in March. It also said the hedge Ms E referred to was part of the adopted highway, and it was due to carry out maintenance in the next two weeks.
Ms E contacted the Ombudsman in July and said the Council had failed to resolve the issues. We contacted the Council and asked it consider Ms E’s complaint.
The Council emailed Ms E on 30 September. It said it had arranged to cut the hedges the week commencing 11 October. It said it cut the hedges once a year.
Ms E spoke with an officer about the issues on 8 October. The officer emailed her after the call and agreed to have a site meeting. The officer said operatives visited the site, but Ms E stopped them as she had arranged to have the hedges cut at the side of her house.
The Council met with Ms E on 13 October. It sent a summary of the meeting on 15 October. It said it would pass Ms E’s request to own the land next to her house to relevant officers. It said it was its responsibility to maintain the hedges behind her house and it agreed to cut them down as soon as possible. It also said it had implemented further parking restrictions earlier in the year and due to its financial position, it would not consider any further requests.
Ms E remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She sent a further email in February 2022 and said it had recently cut the hedge, but very badly.
The Council implemented a new procedure at the beginning of April which said it would reduce the maintenance of its hedges from three times a year to once a year.
The Council issued its stage two response in April. It said the land at the side of Ms E’s house forms part of the publicly adopted highway, but it did not own the land. It said Ms E could approach the owner to purchase the land. It also reiterated it would not implement any further parking restrictions.
The Council sent Ms E a further email on 20 July. It said it had liaised with ward councillors and all parties agreed it could not accommodate her requests for further restrictions. It said due to its financial position, it would be reviewing its processes on the types of schemes it delivered. Until then, it would not consider any further requests for parking restrictions.
Analysis The evidence shows the Council completed the maintenance of the hedge in front of Ms E’s house in October 2020, as this was confirmed by her MP. Although it agreed to do further maintenance in February 2021, there is no evidence to suggest this was done. The Council said it would maintain the hedges when it responded to Ms E’s complaint in October 2021, but again it has not produced any evidence it did this. I am satisfied the Council did maintain the hedges in February 2022, as Ms E emailed to confirm she was not happy with it.
When I asked the Council about its records, it said it does not have any evidence of when it maintained the hedges. It says operatives record this information on the tracking system and it is cleared after 30 days. As Ms E had made a complaint, I consider the Council should have kept any records of when it maintained the hedges. I do not consider it is satisfactory for this information to have been deleted after 30 days. The Council knew Ms E had contacted the Ombudsman and it is likely we would need to see this information. It needs to change its record keeping procedures to prevent a recurrence of this fault.
When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. I consider it is more likely than not the Council did not maintain the hedges three times a year as it agreed to do in 2019. It is unlikely Ms E would have gone to the trouble of contacting her MP and the Ombudsman if the Council had done it. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it said the schedule for highways stated it would cut the hedges once a year. This again reinforces my view it did not maintain the hedges three times a year in accordance with its procedure (before 1 April 2022) and its commitment to Ms E in 2019.
The Council’s fault means Ms E has been put to time and trouble in pursuing the matter. Ms E also says the Council’s fault has led to a rat infestation. There is no evidence the rat infestation is a direct cause of the Council’s failure to maintain the hedges. Finally, Ms E says she has spent a lot of money maintaining the hedges. She has not provided any evidence of this. However, if she has this evidence, she should provide it to the Council. It should then consider reimbursing Ms E some of her additional reasonable costs.
I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action regarding the parking issues. It implemented further parking restrictions in 2021 after listening to Ms E’s concerns. I understand Ms E wants further parking restrictions, but the Council has explained it will not be taking any further action due to financial constraints. However, it has added her requests to the waiting list. The Council must prioritise matters and cannot just implement further restrictions because one person asks for it. I find no fault with the Council’s approach.
Agreed action
To address the injustice caused by fault, by 27 October 2022 the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Ms E.
Pay Ms E £150 for her time and trouble.
Write to Ms E and ask for evidence of any additional costs she has incurred in maintaining the hedges since July 2020. When it receives this information, it should consider reimbursing Ms E's reasonable additional costs.
By 24 November 2022: The Council will change its procedures to ensure it keeps records for more than 30 days of when it maintains hedges on land it is responsible for.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to us about something a council has done.
Ms E says this matter has been ongoing since 2003, but she did not refer her complaint to us until July 2021. I am satisfied Ms E had sufficient opportunities to bring her earlier concerns to us sooner, and therefore I have not exercised discretion to investigate them.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman