The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action to require his neighbour to reduce the height of their trees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council have not carried out enforcement action to require his neighbour to reduce the hight of their trees which form a high hedge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant I have considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council served a High Hedge Notice in 2013 that required Mr X’s neighbour’s hedge to be maintained so it does not exceed 8.5 metres above ground level. The hedge is composed of several trees.
Mr X contacted the Council in 2024 because his neighbours hedge was exceeding 8.5 metres above ground level.
The Council arranged for a site visit by a planning enforcement officer and a specialist forestry officer. They found that the trees were broadly compliant and any further reduction in height could detrimentally affect the trees and potentially kill them. They determined there had been no breach of the High Hedge Notice. The Council recommended the neighbour make staged reductions to the tree hight over the next year to avoid irreversible harm to the trees.
Mr X complains the Council failed to enforce the High Hedge Notice.
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 prevents local authorities from requiring action which would result in the removal of the hedge. This is interpreted to include works that would result in the death or destruction of the hedge.
I am unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbour. This is because the Council sought expert advice which determined the trees could not be cut back further at that time and made recommendations to the neighbour to undertake staged reductions in the tree’s height.
As the Council made its decision property by considering all relevant information, it is allowed to make its decision. We could not find fault with the decision itself just because Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman