Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council failed to enforce a remedial notice it served on their neighbours requiring them to reduce the height of hedges on the boundary. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has failed to enforce the remedial notice served on their neighbours to ensure the height of their hedge remains below 2.75 metres above ground level.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr & Mrs X and the Council’s responses to them.
4. I also considered further comment and information provided by Mr & Mrs X after I issued the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2013 allows councils to consider complaints about high hedges. When a council decides a complaint, it must first decide whether the height of the high hedge is adversely affecting a neighbour’s enjoyment of their home, garden or yard. If it is the Council can order the owner of the high hedge to take action to correct the problem and stop it from happening again.
6. The property next door to Mr & Mrs X’s home is subject to a remedial order. This says the hedge running along the neighbour’s boundary with Mr & Mrs X’s property (which is marked in red on the map attached to the notice), must not exceed 2.75 metres in height above ground level.
7. In March 2019 Mr & Mrs X complained to the Council the neighbour’s hedge exceeded the permitted height.
8. An officer visited the site in April and advised Mr & Mrs X the hedge was not above the permitted height.
9. In May, Mr & Mrs X complained. The Council responded with a letter confirming the hedge had been measured from ground level and does not exceed 2.75m.
10. Mr & Mrs X escalated their complaint. Unfortunately, this was not noted by the Council until a new Enforcement Manager took over in February 2020. He wrote to Mr & Mrs X confirming officers would visit the site again.
11. Mr & Mrs X were not satisfied. The contacted the Council again stating a tree in the corner of their neighbour’s garden is over 5 metres high.
12. In April, the Council told again that officers measured the hedge, and it does not breach the Notice.
13. In June, Council confirmed the tree in the corner of their neighbour’s garden is too far from the boundary and does not fall within the boundary area defined in the Remedial Notice. Therefore, no action can be taken to reduce the height of this specific tree.
14. The information I have seen shows the Council responded to Mr & Mrs X’s complaints about their neighbour’s non-compliance with the remedial notice. The Council visited the site and measured the hedge to ensure compliance. It has confirmed the tree in the corner of the neighbour’s garden is not included in the Remedial Notice and this concurs with the map provided by Mr & Mrs X. So, I do not consider there has been any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. We have not seen any fault in the Council’s actions in response to the reports of the neighbour’s hedge exceeding the maximum permitted height.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman