Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove its hedge from land across the road from her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives across the road from Council-owned land. The Council removed the boundary hedge which screened the land from Mrs X’s property.
2. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to inform her before it removed the hedge;
2. removed the hedge without good reason;
3. did not consider alternative replacement boundaries for the site.
3. Mrs X says the removal of the hedge has:
• caused loss of privacy to her property, causing her stress;
• left her with a ‘disgusting’ view from her property;
• devalued her house and made it less saleable;
• made the allotment site unsecured and attracted anti-social behaviour (ASB), which she feels she must tackle when it happens.
4. Mrs X wants the Council to restore an effective wall or fence boundary to the allotment and lockable gate, recompense her for the reduced value of her home, apologise for overlooking the impacts on residents, and involve residents in future similar decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils may remove vegetation from land they own, just as individual property owners have that right. Only a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or conservation area protection may place limitations on the works which could be done. There is no duty on councils or other landowners to advise nearby residents of an intention to remove a hedge. We cannot say it was fault for the Council to not notify Mrs X of its intention to remove its hedge.
9. Mrs X says the Council has not given proper reasons for its removal of the hedge. Officers have stated why they did the work. The Council says it removed the hedge to make the site’s vehicle access safer, as it reduced visibility for its users when leaving the site for long periods of the year when it could not be cut back. Officers assessed the matter after safety concerns raised from the users of the site. Officers also say the Council has limited maintenance budget and chose not to continue to fund the work required to manage the hedge through the year. It is for councils to decide how to use and prioritise their limited budgets.
10. We can only go behind a council decision if there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. Officers made their decision regarding the hedge after appropriate consideration of the safety issues reported to them by the site’s users, and the Council’s budgetary constraints. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in that decision‑making process to warrant investigation and allow us to criticise that decision. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s reasons and decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees
11. I recognise Mrs X does not like the view without the hedge, says she has lost privacy, and that its loss has devalued her house. But it was not fault for the Council’s consideration of the hedge’s removal to not take account of Mrs X’s property across the road. No property owner is entitled to have a particular view from their house or land, or to forever retain screening provided by vegetation owned and under someone else’s control.
12. Mrs X says the Council did not consider how to replace the hedge with a different boundary. It is for the Council, along with the users of the site, to decide what further action is required to make it secure. Any injustice from the site being unsecured is to those users, not Mrs X. I note Mrs X says the loss of the hedge has resulted in ASB at the site, which she feels she must try to prevent. It is for Mrs X to decide what to do if she believes she is witnessing ASB. But if she does see ASB, she may wish to report it to the appropriate authorities, the police or the Council, rather than seeking deal with it herself.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman