Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to enforce a high hedge remedial notice. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the case, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a better outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to enforce a remedial notice requiring the reduction in height of his neighbour’s hedge. He says this inaction has caused significant and continuing injustice to his family through loss of light, loss of enjoyment of their garden and home, and the stress of prolonged unresolved proceedings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, which included the Planning Inspector’s decision on the appeals against the remedial notice, and his complaint correspondence with the Council.
• an update from the Council on the status of the case.
• the Government guidance ‘High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council has not taken formal enforcement action against his neighbour to ensure the hedge is cut.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. Here, the Council has contacted the neighbour on several occasions (verbally and in writing), who initially advised he was seeking quotes for the works. The Council was also mindful of the impact of the bird nesting season. The Council has explained to Mr X its reasons for adopting this approach. It was entitled to use it professional judgement in deciding how best to progress the case, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusions it reached. As such, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the case since the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation.
8. We also could not achieve one of the outcomes Mr X is seeking, as we cannot direct the Council to take formal enforcement action against the neighbour. And from the Council’s response to my enquiries, I am satisfied it is currently taking steps which seek to bring the case to a conclusion by late-January 2026.
9. That we cannot achieve one of Mr X’s desired outcomes, and could not add anything worthwhile to the ongoing enforcement case, are further reasons why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the case, and we are unlikely to achieve a different or worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman