Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council pruned a hedge at the back of the complainant’s property without giving him an opportunity to do the work. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom, I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council pruned a hedge at the back of his home without giving him any notice or a chance to do the work. Mr X says the cut was severe and has left him with little privacy from the path at the back of his house. Mr X wants compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered photographs of the path from before and after the work and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Highways Act

4. The Highways Act (section 130) places a duty on councils to remove obstructions on the highway. The highway includes paths. Section 154 of the Act allows councils to serve a notice on a land or tree owner to remove an obstruction. If the person does not comply the council can do the work and send a bill to the owner.

What happened

5. There is a public path at the back of Mr X’s property. In previous years Mr X has pruned the hedge near to his home.
6. The Council pruned the hedge along the whole path. Mr X complained. He said the Council had not given him any notice or asked him to do the work. He referred to the Council’s website which said an approach will usually be made to the owner before doing work. Mr X said he would have done the work if the Council had asked.
7. In response the Council explained it had received a report that the vegetation along the path was causing problems. It inspected the path and decided to do immediate work because the vegetation was causing an obstruction and was a potential hazard. It pruned the hedge/vegetation to the boundary, along the whole path, to remove a hazard. It confirmed it did not serve notices because it needed to do immediate work. It explained it had not charged anyone for doing the work.
8. Mr X wants compensation because he would have done the work to a good standard and without a loss of privacy. He also wants the Council to change the wording on the website to reflect that it can, in some circumstances, do immediate work without contacting people who may have an involvement.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
10. The law allows a council to take immediate action if it thinks a highway is being obstructed. I have seen photographs of parts of the path (which may not include the section outside Mr X’s house) and I can understand why the Council decided to take immediate action. Apart from anything else, the overhanging vegetation might have hindered social distancing and this might have contributed to the Council’s decision to take immediate action. It would have taken time to serve notice on all residents living next to the path and to ensure compliance. And, it is possible that not everyone would have been willing to prune their section as Mr X would have been. I cannot comment on the hedge outside Mr X’s home but the photographs I have seen show the work was satisfactory. There may be a temporary reduction in privacy but the vegetation will re-grow. The law allows councils to take immediate action, without serving a notice, so there is no suggestion of administrative fault.
11. Mr X is unhappy that the website does not say the Council can take immediate action without contacting people. He would like the Council to change the wording. However, while I appreciate Mr X’s concern, and the Council may wish to review the webpage, the current wording has not caused an injustice. This is because the Council would have taken the same action regardless of the wording and Mr X would be in the same position as now.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman