Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Authority’s alleged damage to his hedge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s handling to justify our involvement. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue any claim for damage to his hedge through the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority carried out works to a hedge at his property without notifying him following a safety concern. Mr X says the hedge had been in place for 23 years without issue and has been irreversibly damaged by these works. He wants the Authority to pay to remove and replace the damaged hedge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. 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))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Authority carried out works to a hedge at his property without notifying him. He says as a result the hedge is damaged and not growing back.
7. Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 gives Highways Authorities the power to serve a notice requiring a landowner to carry out works if trees, shrubs or hedges on their land overhang the highway and obstruct or endanger highway users. Where the landowner fails to act on the notice, the Highways Authority is allowed to carry out the works in default and recover the cost from the landowner.
8. The Authority served various notices on Mr X between July 2024 and February 2025 requesting he pruned the hedge and explaining it would carry out the works itself if he did not comply. The Authority provided Mr X with a photo of pedestrians forced to walk on the road due to the overhanging hedge which it says supported its safety concern.
9. The Authority cut back Mr X’s hedge in Spring 2025 to restore full access to the footpath as it was legally entitled to do. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s action given its prior warnings and notices to Mr X.
10. Mr X believes the works the Authority carried out were excessive and negligent. We do not normally investigate complaints about property damage, because such matters are effectively allegations of negligence. These are better considered by the Authority’s insurers or, ultimately, the courts. Only the courts can determine liability and award damages.
11. The small claims court has a sliding scale of fees, relative to the amount being claimed. Claimants can also seek to recover their costs if they are successful, and it is not necessary to involve a solicitor so costs can be low and the process straight forward. There is not a good reason for us to consider this complaint instead of the courts. Only the courts can decide whether the Authority has been negligent and whether it should be considered liable for the damage. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to seek a remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. It is also reasonable for Mr X to pursue any claim for damage through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman