Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided inaccurate/incorrect information about the extent to which she needed to cut back her hedge to comply with sightline requirements. The Council’s failure to provide clear and accurate advice or instructions regarding the extent to which Mrs X needed to cut back her hedge is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X complained the Council provided inaccurate/incorrect information about the extent to which she needed to cut back her hedge to comply with sightline requirements. As a result Mrs X has been put to unnecessary time and trouble and incurred significant costs.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• Mrs 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

5. Under section 154 of The Highways Act 1980 councils can ask the owner to cut back hedges or trees on their property if they are causing an obstruction in the road. If the owner refuses, the council can do the work themselves. They may then charge the owner for this work.

What happened here

6. In late June 2023 the Council wrote to Mrs X asking her to cut and trim back a boundary hedge at her property that was affecting sightlines from a junction. A highways inspector, Officer 1 advised Mrs X that anyone sat 2.5 metres back from the centre line of the junction must be able to see 90 metres clear visibility in both directions at a height of 1.2 metres. Officer 1 said this meant taking the hedge down to the outer fence height of 1.2 metres. Officer 1 invited Mrs X to contact them if she wanted to confirm the area to be cut back or required assistance cutting it back.
7. On 4 July 2023 Mrs X told the Council the boundary hedges were trimmed twice a year but she would arrange to have the hedge trimmed earlier than planned. She asked the Council whether it could arrange temporary traffic lights on 15, 16 or 21 July 2023 to protect the workers while the hedge was trimmed. Then on 7 July 2023 Mrs X asked for a map/ plan showing the sight line that needed to be achieved.
8. Officer 1 provided details of the cost of temporary traffic management and a Google maps image with the area to be reduced marked. Mrs X asked for a scale plan, rather than a photograph, which showed the sightline from its starting point in the centre of the junction.
9. On 10 July 2023 Officer 1 provided a plan marked with the sight line and subsequently confirmed that everything on the main road side of the sightline needed to be at a height no greater than 1.2 metres. When Mrs X asked for further clarification, Officer 1 suggested a site meeting later that week. Mrs X was unavailable that day and asked Officer 1 to confirm the point on the plan which represents the 2.5 metre position in the junction referred to in their initial letter.
10. Mrs X did not receive a response but continued to trim back the hedge. On 21 July 2023 Mrs X told the Council she had made some improvements but could not achieve the required visibility. She noted there was a telegraph pole and vegetation both over 1.2 metres on the verge on the main road side of the sightline. Remedial work was also required to the verge on the other side of the junction. Mrs X asked the Council to ensure this was resolved.
11. Officer 1 confirmed they had checked with the area engineer who agreed the sightlines from the junction were now acceptable. They had no concerns about the pole or hedging; or about visibility on the other side of the junction.
12. Mrs X asserted the Council’s position demonstrated Officer 1 had unnecessarily required her to remove a section of her hedge, when she could have trimmed the hedge back in line with the fence with no loss of height. She said this would have taken an hour or two, and she could have disposed of the cuttings in her garden waste bins. Instead she had spent 20 to 30 hours cutting back the hedge and had incurred the cost of skip hire to dispose of the cuttings.
13. Mrs X said that had she followed the Counsil’s instructions to the letter she would have had to cut down the entire hedge to 1.2 metres. This would have destroyed the valuable habitat for nesting birds and would have left her with no privacy to her garden. Mrs X asked the Council to apologise and to reimburse her the £1200 she had incurred in skip hire.
14. Officer 1 responded to advise it was Mrs X’s responsibility to maintain her hedge, and costs incurred in maintaining it were Mrs X’s responsibility alone. Mrs X disputed she was responsible for the costs on this occasion and made a formal complaint to the Council in early August 2023. A highways maintenance engineer met with Mrs X in October 2023 to discuss the required works. Mrs X says the engineer agreed the sightlines Officer 1 had provided were wrong.
15. The Council then responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council considered it was clear that a substantial amount of trimming back was required. However it acknowledged Officer 1 could have made more of an effort to get an accurate map showing the exact sightline. This would have resulted in Mrs X cutting back a little less of the hedge than she had done to achieve the required sightline.
16. The Council noted Officer 1 had offered to meet with Mrs X on 11 July 2023 and suggested a meeting at this time may have defused the situation.
17. Although the Council accepted the matter could have been handled better and apologised, it confirmed it would not reimburse Mrs X the £1200 skip costs as no one at the Council had instructed or asked her to hire a skip.
18. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. Mrs X maintains the Council should reimburse her costs as she would not have incurred them had she been given the correct sightlines at the outset. Mrs X has provided four invoices for skips delivered to her property on 6, 7, 10 and 12 July 2023 for a total of £1200.
19. In response to the draft decision Mrs X says she began cutting back the hedge in the week commencing 3 July 2023. She then realised she would need more than just her garden waste bins to dispose of the cuttings and ordered a skip. As each skip filled up, Mrs X ordered another.
20. Having started the work Mrs X says she also began to question Officer 1’s reference to an outer fence and how the officer would know the entire fence had to be removed. She says it was at this stage she realised she needed an exact sightline and asked for further information.
21. Mrs X maintains Officer 1 made a mistake in their initial letter and with the sightline, and that this cost her a lot of money and still causes her daily distress.

Analysis

22. The Council accepts the matter could have been handled better and that it could have made more of an effort to provide an accurate map showing the exact sightline necessary. The Council notes Officer 1 was new to the role and could have been given more support. The sightline provided by Officer 1 required the hedge to be cut back much further than the sightline subsequently identified by the highways engineer who met with Mrs X.
23. It is possible that an earlier meeting to discuss the works required would have clarified the situation. Unfortunately Mrs X was unavailable on the day Officer 1 suggested and asked instead for clarification of the red line on Officer 1’s plan. I have not received any evidence Mrs X received any further clarification.
24. I consider the Council’s failure to provide clear and accurate instructions regarding the extent to which Mrs X needed to cut back her hedge is fault.
25. Had the Council provided clear and accurate information Mrs X would not have needed to cut back as much of her hedge as she did to achieve the required sightline. Mrs X says she spent 20 – 30 hours cutting back the hedge when the necessary sightline could have been achieved in just a few hours.
26. Mrs X would like the Council to reimburse the cost of the skips she hired to dispose of the hedge cuttings. Based on the documentation available I am not persuaded this is appropriate in this instance.
27. Mrs X asked the Council for a map / plan showing the sightline on 7 July 2023. Her correspondence confirms that by his date she had already started trimming the hedge. The invoices for the skips also show that two skips had been delivered to Mrs X’s property by 7 July 2023. A third skip was then delivered to Mrs X’s property on 10 July 2023, the same day Officer 1 provided a plan showing the sightline. This suggests Mrs X had decided to hire skips before she had clarified the extent of the works with the Council. I do not therefore consider it appropriate to ask the Council to reimburse this cost.
28. I do however consider the Council should make a symbolic payment in recognition of the unnecessary work and inconvenience it put Mrs X to.
29. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in early August 2023. Under the Council’s complaints process the Council should have acknowledged her complaint within three working days and provided a response within 15 working days. The documentation provided suggests the Council did not formally respond to Mrs X’s complaint until 3 November 2023. This is significantly outside its published timeframes. We expect councils to act in accordance with their own complaints processes. The Council’s failure to do so in this case is fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed to
• apologise to Mrs X for the failure to provide clear and accurate information about the extent to which she needed to cut back her boundary hedge. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the unnecessary work and inconvenience she was put to as a result of the Council’s failings.
31. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Council’s failure to provide clear and accurate advice or instructions regarding the extent to which Mrs X needed to cut back her hedge is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman