Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to reduce the height of its trees growing near Mr X’s home. We cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to follow the legal definition of a hedge and is not following the high hedge complaints process detailed on gov.uk.
2. He says the hedge is causing him mental health issues as he worries the trees might fall on his house and kill or injure him. He also says the high hedge is reducing light to his home, reducing the benefit of solar panels and increasing his use of electricity.
3. He wants the trees to be cut to two metres high.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X told the Council that a hedge on its land:
• is a barrier to light to his home;
• causes shading to his home; and
• causes debris to fall into his garden

He demanded the trees be cut down to two metres.

9. The Council told Mr X it had inspected the trees and there were no actionable defects. It confirmed it would continue to inspect them.
10. Mr X was not satisfied and complained that the Council was refusing to follow legislation covering high hedges.
11. The Council told Mr X the seven trees he complains about may be growing in a line but do not form a hedge and have never done so. It confirms they are inspected every five years and are in good health. It also confirms it will not prune or fell Council owned trees to:
• improve natural light,
• improve light to solar panels; or
• reduce leaf fall, blossom or shedding of minor branches from private property.
12. Mr X remained dissatisfied. He asked the Council to provide the address of the Planning Inspectorate as he wished to appeal against the Council’s decision not to reduce the height of the trees. He also asked it to explain why the Council will not follow the law on high hedges.
13. The Council explained it does not consider the trees are a hedge as there are significant gaps between the trees through which a ‘generous amount of light can pass’. It provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate website if he wanted to appeal and advised Mr X of his right to escalate his complaint through the complaint procedure.
14. Mr X escalated his complaint. He disagrees the trees are in good condition. He disagrees with the Council’s view that the trees are not a hedge.
15. The Council’s final response confirmed it has inspected the trees and will leave them in place. It advised Mr X he can complain to the Ombudsman
16. This complaint is a disagreement as to whether the trees form a hedge or not. The Ombudsman is not an appeal service. We consider whether there is fault in the process followed leading to the decision in question. In this case the Council has inspected the trees and explained why it does not consider they form a hedge.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We cannot require the Council to reduce the height of the trees which is the outcome Mr X is seeking.
• Mr X is aware of his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector; therefore I consider the Council’s reference to its complaint process and the Ombudsman had not caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman