Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not requiring a hedge to be cut. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take action to compel a neighbouring landowner to reduce the size of a hedge which blocks visibility from Mr X’s private driveway onto the highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X asked the Council to compel his neighbour to cut back or remove a hedge on land next to Mr X’s driveway. He says the hedge blocks visibility from his driveway onto the highway. Mr X says there has already been an accident in this location which was caused by the hedge blocking visibility. He says this is a public safety risk.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s request, including the report he provided. The Council decided it would not take action to require Mr X’s neighbour to reduce the size of the hedge and explained the reasons for its decision.
8. A council does not have a duty to require landowners to cut hedges that block visibility. Instead, they have a discretionary power to act under Section 79 (1) of the Highways Act 1980.
9. We are 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 the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. The Council provided evidence it properly considered Mr X’s request and explained the reasons it was not taking enforcement action against his neighbour to require the hedge to be cut. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman