Summary: Mr & Mrs C complain that the Council have failed to act against a neighbour who has failed to maintain their hedge. However, on the evidence the Ombudsman has seen there is no fault in how the Council considered this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr & Mrs C, complain that the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour had not maintained their hedge, meaning that it is encroaching onto the footpath and covering road signs.

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 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr & Mrs C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• communicated with Mrs C about the complaint.
5. I also sent both parties a draft copy of this decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Hedges and highways

6. The law (The Highways Act 1980) says that residents must ensure their hedges do not obstruct the path or any part of the highway. A Council can ask someone to prune a hedge by serving a notice. If the person does not respond, or if the Council thinks the hedge presents a danger that requires immediate action, it can do the work and charge the resident.

What happened

7. Mr & Mrs C live on a residential street. Their neighbour has a hedge at the front of the property which runs alongside a footpath. Mr C is disabled and in a wheelchair.
8. Mrs C contacted the Council and reported that the neighbours hedge had become overgrown and was encroaching on the footpath and blocking a road sign.
9. The Council wrote to the neighbour and asked them to cut back the hedge within 14 days. The Council said that if the hedge is not trimmed it may take enforcement action. The Council asked the neighbour to keep it updated with any action it took.
10. When Mrs C complained, the Council said that discussions were taking place with the neighbour, but data protection legislation meant it could not divulge the outcome with her.
11. A Council highways inspector visited the street to inspect the hedge and took a photo. The inspector concluded that the hedge was not causing an obstruction or danger to the public.
12. In Mr & Mrs C’s complaint to the Ombudsman they said that the overgrown hedge meant that Mr M had hurt his neck trying to see across the hedge and that the matter had caused them both distress.
13. Upon contacting the Council, it provided the Ombudsman with copies of correspondence between it and the neighbour and a copy of the photo taken by the inspector.

Analysis

14. Mr & Mrs C complain about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbour whose hedge is overgrown and blocking the highway and a road sign.
15. However, the Council provided evidence showing that it visited the site, considered Mr & Mrs C’s comments and concluded that the hedge is not causing an obstruction so has taken no further action.
16. Mr & Mrs C disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, I have seen no evidence of fault in how it considered the matter. We cannot question the Council’s decision where it is made without fault

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman