Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his neighbour maintained the trees and bushes in their front garden. We find no fault in the Council’s handling of the high hedges matter itself. However, there was a significant delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. The Council has apologised and offered a suitable payment to Mr X, which is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his neighbour maintained the trees and bushes in their front garden.
2. He said the trees block the sunlight and view from his front room which affects his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

7. Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local councils to deal with complaints about high hedges whose area contains the land on which the hedge is situated.
8. When councils are determining a complaint, they must first decide whether the height of the high hedge is having an adverse effect on a neighbour’s enjoyment of their home and/or its garden or yard. If it is, then councils can order the owner of a high hedge to take action to put right the problem and stop it from happening again.
9. The legislation also allows councils to set and charge fees for handling these complaints.
10. The Council charges £400 for this service with a reduced fee of £200 for people who are on certain benefits.

What happened

11. In May 2023, Mr X made a complaint to the Council, reporting overgrown trees and bushes in his neighbour’s front garden which were obstructing light and views from his property, attracting vermin, and encroaching on the pavement. He said the Council had previously told the neighbour to keep the trees and bushes no taller than six feet.
12. Mr X later shared the complaint with the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team, who advised him to raise the issue with the Planning team.
13. Later in the month, Mr X forwarded an email trail to the ASB team between himself and Manchester City Council regarding the overgrown trees and bushes.
14. In June, the ASB team replied, telling Mr X to raise the issue with the Planning team. Mr X told the ASB team that although his neighbour had slightly trimmed the trees, the bushes on the shared boundary remained about 8 feet tall. He asked the ASB team to forward the issue to the Planning team, as no investigation had been carried out.
15. Mr X later escalated the issue to his local MP. The MP contacted the council on his behalf.
16. The Council replied to the MP stating the trees and bushes had previously been assessed and were within required limits. The Council also confirmed the Planning team had no record of a recent formal high hedges complaint from Mr X.
17. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the ASB team reporting the trees and bushes as overgrown, unmaintained, and continuing to negatively impact his property.
18. In March, Mr X asked the ASB team whether his neighbour was contacted about the trees. The team apologised for the delay in responding, explained the matter was outside its remit and directed him to Environmental Health.
19. Mr X then contacted Environmental Health, who referred the matter to the Planning team. The Planning team checked their records and advised Mr X to submit a formal high hedges complaint using the Council’s online form. However, Council records show that no such complaint was received.
20. In June, Mr X raised the issue again with the ASB team.
21. In December 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s original May 2023 complaint, acknowledging a significant delay due to a system error and offering £300 as a goodwill payment. It stated there is no legal height limit for trees, but it can investigate high hedge complaints if they affect a neighbour’s enjoyment of their property. It clarified such complaints are handled by the Planning team and that no formal complaint had been received. It also noted the £400 (£200 for those on certain benefits) fee for submitting such a complaint, as permitted by legislation.

My findings

22. The Council has a clear process for handling high hedge complaints. Mr X was appropriately advised to raise his concerns with the Planning team in May 2023, June 2023, March 2024, and December 2024. However, records show that a formal complaint was not submitted through the required process.
23. In June 2023, when Mr X asked the ASB team to pass his concerns to the Planning team, the ASB team neither forwarded the complaint nor responded to him. The ASB team also did not respond to his contact in June 2024. This is fault. While this did not cause Mr X an injustice significant enough to warrant a remedy, as he had been told how to progress his complaint, the Council could have offered more joined-up support. For example, by clearly setting out the steps required earlier on, or helping him navigate the process.
24. There is no fault in the Council’s handling of the high hedges matter itself. If Mr X wishes to pursue this issue further, he must complete the relevant online form and pay the associated fee.
25. However, the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s initial complaint within the 20 working days outlined in its own complaints procedure. Instead, it took 19 months to issue a formal response. This significant delay is fault and caused Mr X distress. The Council has acknowledged this and offered £300 as a remedy, which I consider appropriate and in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
26. The Council has also advised that a review of its complaint service is underway and that additional resources are to be put in place. This is a positive step towards preventing similar delays in the future. I therefore make no further recommendations as I recognise updating us could cause further demand on the service at a point where it is trying to improve.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman