Summary: Mr and Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with a high hedge and tree in their garden. Mr and Ms X said this distressed and frustrated them. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing remedial notices and communication and complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr and Ms X. The Council has already apologised but also agreed to make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Mr and Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with a high hedge and tree in their garden. Mr and Ms X said this distressed and frustrated them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended). The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. 
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. I have exercised discretion to consider events in this case back to September 2023. Mr and Ms X detailed medical emergencies delayed the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr and Ms X’s complaint and spoke to them about it on the phone.
8. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr and Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

10. The Antisocial Behaviour Act (Act) 2003 allows councils to deal with complaints about high hedges having an adverse effect on a person’s use of their home or garden. A high hedge is a line of two or more evergreen or semi evergreen trees or shrubs over 2 metres in height, that are blocking light or access.
11. The law and guidance expects a person to attempt to resolve the issue the neighbour first. If this does not work, the person can complain to a council. It will decide whether it should act. A council can reject the complaint if it considers the person has not made enough effort to resolve the problem, or if it thinks the complaint is frivolous or vexatious.
12. A council can inspect the hedge, and if it decides the trees or shrubs are adversely affecting the person’s enjoyment of their home, a council can order the owner to take action to solve the issue, such as lowering the height of the tree. A council can charge a fee for this service.
13. 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.
14. Section 70 of the Act allows a council to waive or relax a requirement of a remedial notice or withdraw it altogether.
15. Section 71 of the Act allows a complainant to appeal 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.
16. Section 19 of government guidance “high hedges, complaining to the council” states:
• “When they’ve got both sides of the story, a council officer will visit the site to look at the hedge and its surroundings”.
17. The Council complaint policy sets out the timescales it should take to respond to complaints. It should respond to:
• Stage one complaints in 10 working days; and
• Stage two complaints in 20 working days.

What happened

18. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
19. Mr and Ms X have a hedge with a tree in their garden backing onto neighbouring properties. A neighbour, neighbour B, complained to the Council about the high hedge in September 2023.
20. Two other neighbours, neighbour C and D, complained to the Council about the high hedge in October 2023. The Council asked Mr and Ms X to complete a questionnaire about the hedge. Mr and Ms X responded a week later.
21. The Council completed visits to neighbours B, C and D. The Council took photographs and measurements. It decided what height the hedge should be for each neighbouring property.
22. Mr and Ms X provided a more detailed statement in November 2023.
23. The Council issued three remedial notices to Mr and Ms X in August 2024. The notices detailed the height the hedge should be cut to, to allow light into the neighbouring gardens.
24. Mr and Ms X contacted the Planning Inspectorate to ask questions about the remedial notice.
25. Mr and Ms X asked to meet with the Council in October 2024.
26. Mr and Ms X complained in November 2024. They complained about difficulties contacting the Council, not visiting to view their side of the hedge and delays.
27. The Council issued its response the following week. It apologised for not returning calls. The response confirmed an officer viewed the hedge from neighbouring properties but acknowledged its wording implied it would visit. The Council said it would amend the wording in future communications. The Council said the timescale to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and Mr and Ms X should have appealed even if they were waiting for information. The Council confirmed the tree is part of the hedge, so it would need to be reduced in height. The Council apologised for poor communication.
28. Mr and Ms X asked the Council to escalate their complaint to stage two in December 2024. They said they expected more from the complaint response and felt it was fair for the Council to visit to see both sides of the hedge. Mr and Ms X said they were waiting on information from the Council to inform their appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
29. The Council wrote to Mr and Ms X in January 2025. The Council apologised for the delay completing the stage two response and hoped to respond in February 2025.
30. The Council wrote to Mr and Ms X in February 2025. The Council apologised for the delay completing the stage two response and hoped to respond in March 2025.
31. The Council wrote to Mr and Ms X in March 2025. The Council apologised for the delay completing the stage two response and hoped to respond in April 2025.
32. The Council wrote to Mr and Ms X at the start of April 2025. The Council apologised for the delay completing the stage two response and hoped to respond by the end of April 2025.
33. The Council issued its stage two complaint response at the end of April 2025. The response said the stage one response apologised for misleading communication about the site visit. It also apologised for poor communication. The Council acknowledged the delay issuing the remedial notice and apologised for the frustration and lack of contact. The response confirmed the tree was part of the hedge and the remedial notice restricted its height. It also confirmed Mr and Ms X could submit a late appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The Council apologised for not responding to the request for a meeting and agreed to visit their garden. The Council apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered a £50 remedy payment.
34. Mr and Ms X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate in May 2025.
35. Mr and Ms X were not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr and Ms X would like the Council to apologise and remove the tree from the remedial notice.
36. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged its communication was poor. The Council confirmed the tree was part of the remedial notices.

My findings

37. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’, and where we find it, we can consider the consequences of the fault and ask the council to address these.
38. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against council decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If we do not find fault in how a council has made a decision, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is the wrong decision. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
39. Three neighbours complained about the high hedges in Mr and Ms X’s garden blocking light to their property. The Council visited each property and issued remedial notices for each. Mr and Ms X complain the Council did not visit their property to view the hedge from their side. Government guidance, detailed in paragraph 16, says a Council should visit the site. The guidance does not say the Council should visit both sides of the hedge. The Council has evidenced it visited the neighbours’ properties to see the high hedges. The Council was not at fault.
40. Mr and Ms X also complained about poor communication from the Council. The Ombudsman expects a Council to make timely decisions and appropriately communicate with individuals. The Council has acknowledged delays in issuing the remedial notices and poor communication. This is fault. The Council apologised to Mr and Ms X. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice the fault caused. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mr and Ms X’s complaint, including providing guidance to its staff to respond appropriately to communication.
41. Mr and Ms X had an appeal right to the Planning Inspectorate when the Council issued the remedial notices. Mr and Ms X had the appeal right and it was reasonable for them to use this. While they did not fully understand or agree with the detail of the notices, and the communication issues impacted this matter, when the Council gave them the appeal right, this limits the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider the matter. I cannot comment on anything the Planning Inspectorate could consider from this time, including the details in the remedial notice.
42. The Council complaint policy says the Council should respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. The Council response took 100 working days, an 80 working days delay. While the Council has kept in communication with Mr and Ms X during this delay, the delay is fault. This frustrated Mr and Ms X. The Council accepted this and offered a £50 payment. While this is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it does not reflect the frustration the four-month delay caused. Mr and Ms X confirmed they had not accepted this amount during the complaint process.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr and Ms X by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mr and Ms X £150 as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble they have spent pursuing this complaint.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr and Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman