Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions related to high hedges and trees in gardens close to hers. We found fault because the Council did not issue documentation about the required height of the trees creating the hedge when it should have done which meant Mrs X was not given appeal rights linked to this change. We also found fault because the Council did not properly respond to Mrs X’s complaints. These faults caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to her, issue relevant documentation and issue guidance to officers.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions linked to high hedges in gardens neighbouring her own. She says the Council has not taken decisive action to progress matters after it issued notices to the properties concerned to shorten their hedge height. She is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling.
2. Mrs X says the hedges are still affecting enjoyment of her garden and property causing her distress and frustration.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (the Act) allows local councils to deal with complaints about high hedges.
8. Section 66 of the Act states a high hedge means so much of a barrier to light or access as:
1. is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and
2. rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.
9. “Evergreen” in section 66 means an evergreen or semi-evergreen tree or shrub.
10. 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 grounds. 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.
11. The legislation also allows councils to set and charge fees for handling these complaints.
12. Section 69 of the Act allows a relevant authority (in this case the Council) to issue a remedial notice which requires initial action to be taken before the end of a specific date given, known as the compliance period. It says any action in the remedial notice is not to require or involve the removal of the hedge. It also says preventative action can be specified in a notice and that this will be following the end of the compliance period while the hedge remains on the land.
13. Section 70 of the Act allows a council to waive or relax a requirement of a remedial notice or withdraw it altogether.
14. Section 71 of the Act allows a complainant to appeal the relaxation or withdrawal of the remedial notice within 28 days of the relevant date. The relevant date is the date the complainant is notified of the change. The complainant can then appeal this to the Planning Inspectorate.

What happened

15. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.

Background and context

16. Mrs X first contacted the Council in spring 2022. She listed various neighbouring properties to hers which had high trees and hedges in their gardens bordering her own. She complained they limited the natural light in her house and grounds. She said they caused shade, allowed moss to grow and that roots disturbed her garden and grounds. She said this happened for large parts of the year and meant she could not enjoy her property as she wished. Mrs X paid the required high hedge complaint fee to the Council.
17. The Council visited the properties concerned to assess the hedges and trees. It decided it would take action. In autumn 2022, it prepared a detailed report about the issues. It noted that one property had already removed the trees concerned and did not include it in any further action.
18. The Council then issued decision and remedial notices to the other properties complained about. The Council required the properties to reduce the trees to a specific height (the initial action height). After this, the properties would be required to maintain the trees to a different specific height (the preventative action height). Both Mrs X and the affected properties had the right to appeal the content of the remedial notices to the Planning Inspectorate. Parties needed to do this within 28 days of the notices being issued. By the beginning of 2023, there were two remaining properties that had not complied with the notices.

Property A

19. At the beginning of 2023, the Council sent a letter to one of the properties, Property A, because it had not fully complied with the notice by the deadline of the compliance period. It had made some cuts but these were not to the required height.
20. In communications with Mrs X over the coming months, the Council advised her it had made the decision to give Property A more time to make further reductions to its trees. The Council said it was allowing the trees to recover before further cutting and had given Property A until August to do so.
21. In July 2023, the occupier of Property A emailed the Council to explain what had previously been done and the effect on the trees, sending the Council pictures as evidence. The Council responded in August to advise it would not expect them to reduce the height any further at that time on the basis it may cause the trees to decline further. The Council said the trees needed to be maintained in order to prevent further action. The Council advised Mrs X it would reinspect in spring 2024.

2024

22. Mrs X complained to the Council towards the end of March 2024. She was unhappy with the content of the original notices, the heights the Council had decided trees needed to be reduced to, and that Property A had not complied with the remedial notice.
23. At the end of March, the Council emailed Mrs X to confirm a temporary pause in enforcement for Property A due to the condition of the trees.
24. At the beginning of April, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said it was satisfied the high hedge complaint was investigated properly. It said compliance had already been secured for some properties and ongoing monitoring was taking place for others.
25. In April, the Council then contacted Property A to arrange to inspect the trees. Both parties arranged a date in June. The Council then contacted Property A again late in August. The trees were then trimmed to within 50cm of the initial action height required on the original notice. The Council made a further visit to confirm this in September. The Council decided the trimming was both reasonable and compliant, considering the previous cutting and condition of the trees.
26. In mid-September, the Council sent an email to Mrs X to explain its decision to relax the requirements of the remedial notice. This explained the Council was concerned that forcing full compliance to the initial action height could cause the death of the trees and it was not able to force such action. It considered it was therefore necessary to relax the notice. It confirmed it had done so under powers it had through the Act and it believed the correct balance was being struck.
27. In response to an email from Mrs X, the Council advised her in October it had no plans to schedule any more site visits and would not expect any more pruning for at least 12 months. After further communication, the Council advised Mrs X of how to complain about the matter.
28. After further contact with the Council, it declined to escalate her complaint and signposted her to us.

Property B

29. At the end of November 2022, one of the properties, Property B, exercised its right to appeal the remedial notice through the Planning Inspectorate. Matters with Property B concluded in September 2024 when the occupants withdrew their appeal. Property B then complied with the notice to reduce tree heights and the Council took no further action. The Council advised Mrs X that Property B had complied with the notice and the case was closed.

Analysis

Relaxing the remedial notice for Property A

30. Mrs X is unhappy with the amount of work done to the trees at Property A, particularly the height they had been trimmed to. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the trees had not been reduced to the required height for compliance and that it had adjusted the initial action height to safeguard the hedge’s survival.
31. The Council was within its rights to relax the remedial notice for Property A, as per Section 70 of the Act. It explained the reasoning for this in an email to Mrs X. I am satisfied the Council did not act with any fault when deciding to relax the notice.
32. When the Council relaxed the notice, it should have amended it and advised Mrs X of her appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate about the relaxation and amended remedial notice. The Council has provided no evidence of either of these steps happening. This was fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty as it meant she was unaware of her right to appeal.
33. In response to my draft decision, the Council suggested it withdraw the relevant notice which would give Mrs X a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. I am satisfied this is an appropriate way to remedy the injustice caused by the fault and have referenced this below.

Complaint handling

34. The Council’s stage one complaint response sent early in April 2024 explained Mrs X’s right to escalate the complaint to stage two. She emailed the Council to escalate the complaint three days later. The Council confirmed it had informed its complaints team of this and she would receive an acknowledgement.
35. Mrs X chased the Council about the lack of acknowledgement and stage two complaint response at the end of July 2024. There is no evidence the Council responded to this chase.
36. After she was advised of the relaxation of the remedial notice for Property A, Mrs X was directed to the Council’s complaint process again. She submitted a new complaint. The Council responded to say this had been part of her initial complaint in March 2024 which it had not upheld, and which she had not escalated. It said as she did not contact it during the timeframe for escalations to be considered, she was too late and had the right to approach the Ombudsman.
37. The Council should have responded to Mrs X’s stage two escalation having acknowledged it in early April 2024. It should also have responded to her chase in July 2024. Further to this, the Council did not realise Mrs X had escalated her complaint when it wrote to her in December 2024. All of this is fault. It caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mrs X for the identified injustice;
• make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £150 to reflect the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified injustice;
• withdraw the remedial notice for Property A’s hedge which will give Mrs X linked appeal rights; and
• provide guidance to relevant officers and managers about the relaxation of remedial notices and the importance of advising complainants about their appeal rights in such circumstances.
39. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
40. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman