Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions and decisions regarding a privately-owned hedge next to part of the pathway on the road where he lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives with his family in house on a road where a neighbour has a boundary hedge next to the Council’s pathway. He complains the Council has failed to make sure the hedge is cut back enough to not obstruct the pathway.
2. Mr X says his wife cannot use the path on her mobility scooter because it is not wide enough due to the hedge. He says his son has fallen off his bicycle several times, catching it on the hedge when riding past. Mr X wants the hedge cut back to the edge of its owner’s property, in line with Department for Transport guidance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X first raised concerns about the hedge in spring 2024 and the Council sent officers to inspect it. They found the hedge overgrown but did not consider it to be a significant obstruction to the path. Mr X pursued the matter during 2024 and sent a complaint to the Council about the hedge in spring 2025. Officers made a further visit and determined it required work to reduce how much of it was overhanging the path. After some delay, the hedge’s owner did the work the Council requested. In their dealings with the owner, officers were satisfied they had maintained the hedge using qualified tree surgeon advice that cutting it back too much in one go may kill it. Officers advised the owner’s intention was to gradually reduce the hedge’s width. They revisited the site after the work and decided the size and location of the hedge no longer merited taking further action at that time. They noted the hedge is next to a road with low traffic levels. Officers decided the hedge did not cause enough of an obstruction or safety risk in its location to warrant further work or Council enforcement.
8. Officers gathered information about the hedge’s size, location and level of impact on the highway when deciding what action to take. The work done by the owner to the hedge meant, in their professional judgement, that they did not have grounds to take further action at that time. That was a decision the officers were entitled to make at the end of their process. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision and investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. The outcome Mr X seeks is for the Council to cut back the hedge further or require its owner to do so. It is for Council officers to determine what works and actions are required on highways in its area. We cannot order councils to do or seek works to a particular highway location, even if we have had a complaint about it. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman