Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not cut a hedge which was overhanging the public highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council cutting back her hedge without giving her notice or an opportunity to act herself.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says the Council cut back her roadside boundary hedge without giving her any notification that it was going to do so. She says she would have cut the hedge back if asked to because she has work carried out annually. The Council says its inspector ordered the works because it presented a hazard to pedestrians, it is on a road junction corner where visibility is important. It says its inspector knocked at the premises and made calls without success in gaining contact.
6. The Council cut the hedge back to the boundary between the pavement edge and the private property, parallel with a street name sign. Mrs X says she disputes the extent of the highway boundary. We are unable to determine any dispute about boundary locations as this is a civil matter and can only be decided by the courts.
7. The Council as highway authority has a duty to assert and protect the rights of highway users under the Highways Act 1980, including pedestrians on footways which are part of the public highway. It has general powers to remove obstructions as well as a specific power with regard to overhanging vegetation.
8. The Council has not charged Mrs X for the work which it carried out which is allowed to if carrying out works in default. Although she says the works has left her hedge bare at the point where it meets the highway the Council says it will recover and it has not removed growth which was not over the public highway.
9. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council acted under highway powers in the public interest.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not cut a hedge which was overhanging the public highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman