Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to accept responsibility for maintaining a hedge on her property boundary. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter concerns the ownership of land and the Ombudsman cannot determine legal title to land or property. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says she has maintained a hedge outside her property and alongside the highway for several years. She says the Council should maintain this and that she has gone to considerable expense to carry out work which she is not responsible for.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint and she has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X’s property has a long hedge on one boundary with the public highway. She has maintained the hedge for several years but does not believe that she is responsible for it. When the hedge grew out into the footway the Council informed her that it was her responsibility to cut it back. She challenged the Council’s view that it was her hedge.
5. The Council obtained records from the Land Registry which indicated that part of the hedge was unregistered and of uncertain ownership. The remaining portion of the hedge was indicated as being within Mrs X’s property boundary. She disputes this but she has not obtained copies of the Land Registry records so far. She wants the Council to accept responsibility for maintaining the hedge which is now too large for her to maintain herself. The Council has agreed to cut the hedge back on a one-off, without prejudice basis but believes it is her responsibility.
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Council says its investigations have concluded that it is not responsible for the hedge.
7. The Ombudsman cannot determine ownership or titles to land or property. The Council has sought to determine who owns the hedge and Mrs X would have to take legal advice if she wants to challenge this view.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter concerns the ownership of land and the Ombudsman cannot determine legal title to land or property. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman