Hi all,

My Mother has lived in her Council house for over 40 years.

A few years ago new neighbours bought the adjoining semi. At first all seemed good with them respectively, but then for some reasons things have soured some what.

They allowed there boundry to become overgrown which pushed over my Mums lillac bush.

She has a little table and chair by it and sits there in the summer, she has a small set of windchimes which were locted on the bush which is some 30 feet away from the properties.I had to cut back the overgrown foilage and branches from next door and cut back the lillac bush in order for it to straighten up. During this my Mum moved her windchimes to a bracket on the wall of her house, there was originally a plaque there which she removed at the request of the neighbour as during wintertime it was alleged it banged against the wall disturbing them during windy times.

At some point the owners of a property behind my Mums left their property and left behind their cat, which was going from door to door for food inc my Mum.

The neighbours I will call Mr & Mrs M decied they were going to take ownership of the cat and took it to the vets and put a collar on it.

Mr & Mrs M told and wrote to my Mum not to encourage or feed the cat and to keep it out of her garden (if only she could talk to the animals).

Then the M's complained to the Coucil about my Mums windchimes, noise.

An official came round and left my Mum in floods of tears, believing they would evict her after a tribunal if she did not take them down.

I have to add that no sound measuring devices were used to test to see if it constituted a pollution or nuisance above a certian decibel etc.

To avoid further aggro, my Mum agreed and removed them.

Next the M's had Virgin Cable installed and the Engineer came on to my Mum's property and started to scrape away at her garden edge, of course my Mum went out and asked what he was doing and explained he had no right without permission of the Council or her to dig her garden or lay cables that were not directly hers, it was the easy option for the installer as the M's drive was paved over with slabs.

The installer was not happy and complained there is all ways one. Mrs M then said not to worry as she (my Mum) was not going to there much longer. (my Mum is 67)

My Mum was upset bt the comments but passed them off.

A little while later the M's decided to take up the slabs and have a proper block paved drive put down instead.

During this the removed the demarcation strip between the properties, which was not replaced or used as a boundry edge to the M's Paved area.

The M's had a large skip 10 ton to my reckoning and of coures filled it.

Someone decide that as the skip was there they would use it for their own waste.

There was heavy metal frames, camping equipment, old food, quilts, alcahol cans bottles etc.

Mrs M was seen by a Neighbour opposite taking stuff out of the skip and putting it on the pavement edge and when Mr m came home she directed him to put the rubbish on my Mum's drive.

On the morning of that incident Mrs m rang the police and staed she had witnessed my Mum chucking the rubbish into the skip at 8:00 am and she was returning the rubbish to it's rightfull owner.

Subsequentlly there was an issue with the council etc as to how to deal with the issue and a mediation service was bought in. Mrs M refused to participate in a joint meeting to get to the crux of the issues she believes she has.

On investigation of the contents of the bags etc it was clear and agreed that the food stuffs were not Mum's as She does not drink alcahol, the food stuffs therein She could not consume as she is diabetic and on a restricted diet. There was polish food stuffs in there as well as tobacco products again Mum does not smoke.Nor does She Camp or use Euro currency that was found there also.

In the end we agreed to remove some of the rubbish if they did, (I was against this as I beleive the M's should of been made responsible).

The Coucil arranged for other items to be moved, so in all the M's ended up with a couple of bags to dispose of.

Then there has been further complaints saying my Mum has thrown numerous dead birds into there garden.

I have had very long discussions with the Council in regard to her neighbours behaviour and it has become obvious as they are private owners and Mum is a tenant the Council is down on Mum every time a complaint is made.

I have become frustrated as it's clear my Mumis being victimised by her neighbours.

Recently Mum had a phone call from the council again and a visit. I rang the council and spoke to it's officer who has dealt with this all the time.

she told that "she had forgotten to tell me that during the issues over the skip incident, Mrs M had aske dfor advice on the Maximum height of Mum's hedge at the front of the properties was" I replied was this a complaint or an inquiry?

I was told that Mrs M had complained that she could not see to get off the driveway and was concerned that she would run someone over on the pavement.

The hedge is well maintained at around 10 feet high (this gives her privacy) and has been so for years.

In any event the officer told me the maximum height Mum was allowed to have was 28 inches and was in breach of her tenancy agreement.

I explained that there was no such permissable height as in her tennacy agreement it Merely states at

3.16 You must keep your yard and/or garden area to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. You are responsible for the upkeep of all parts of your garden, this includes but is not limited to grass, trees, plants, bushes, hedges, garage or outbuilding.

She did not like the fact that I had explained her error.

I also pointed out that if the complaint is made then surley it falls under the Anti social behaviours act and in particular reference to the high hedges legislation should take precidence.

see Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003

• Part 8
  

and google naturenet for the info on high hedges etc. I DID PUT LINKS IN BUT AM NOT ALLOWED BY THE SITE TO USE THEM.

The Crux is Which applies?

The Council is stating that her Tennancy agreement is under issue and primary.

I have said I don't agree and as a formal complaint has been made then it should fall under the above.

I understand that an agreement that is made Contractually should not surpass the law or cause a breach of the law and such is an illegal contract in law it's self.

Mum has now recvieved a letter from the council giving her till the 22nd Feb to cut the entire bush down to a height of 26 inches.

There has been no consultation as to what Mum would like etc etc.

I agree the hedge may be high but this has never been an issue before.

I explained that taking it so low could potentially kill the hedge completely, (as per the contents form Nature net) and her response was that the roots are not being disturbed.

Mum is concerned that the council will evict her if she does not comply, buty I want to make a stand against the Council who have done nothing to support their Tennant.

I stated prior that her neighb ours would not leave my Mum alone untill she was forced out or made so ill with the hassle she would no longer be around.

Has anybody got any advice on which is correct or what I should do to help my Mum out?

Sorry it was long, but I have shortened it somewhat.

Thanks in advance

Chalky White

Have you been in touch with your local Councillor?

PT

Don't know whether you have seen this one

http://www.highhedges.com/

PT

The Council don't evict people. The Courts do. The Council would need to get a Court order, then a warrant of eviction and then the Court Bailiffs must carry out any evictions. I would be very surprised if any Judge would be prepared to evict someone (especially someone elderly) from a Social Housing property because of a hedge or windchimes.

Hi Ploddertom and thanks for your reply.

I have not spoken to a local Councellor to be fair.

Last time when we did regarding a seperate issue of vandalism, abuse, etc from previous Neighbours, his response was for my Mum to move.

Will have a look at the link too.

I am going to write to the Council employee to ask for an extension of time, because

1) she suggested Mum, may qualify for garden maintenence scheme offered by them, the irony of it all is that there services do not commence until March.

This would help as Mum cannot afford for a proffesional to take the hedge down (I have just seen a copy of the letter which states to reduce to a height of 1.3metres, this is laughable as sitting in my car the height supercedes the range of visibility anyway, so the initial complaint of not being able to see to get off their drive way will not be alleviated anyway)

2) this is hardly the time of year to carry out the operation due to unpredictable/inclement weather etc.

I will write under seperate cover a letter of complaint about the misleading information the officer has given out and have alsop opened a file with the Ombudsman, who may take up the gauntlet later on.

The Council don't evict people. The Courts do. The Council would need to get a Court order, then a warrant of eviction and then the Court Bailiffs must carry out any evictions. I would be very surprised if any Judge would be prepared to evict someone (especially someone elderly) from a Social Housing property because of a hedge or windchimes.

Thanks Aviva,

but this is a worry to my Mum, it seems that because next door is privately owned, when a complaint about a Tenant arrises, valid or not they seem to jump on it, but the coucil officer gives us either innacurate or missleading information.

I mean there has been no test of fairness or reasonableness by the officer in her decisions, I had to point out that initially there was no maximum permitted height in my Mums tenancy agreement, but she told me I was wrong and Mum was in breach of her tenancy because her hedge was over 28 inches high. she later checked and realised I was correct all along. I mean it's not rocket science is it, she is an officer of the council and does not know what agreements are and unilaterally makes them up to cover her short comings.

just had a look at the link from what I can see evergreens are covered by the 2003 anti social behaviour act.

But they are using Mums tenancy agreement to make her cut them down to 1.3m.

So which applies? it's the chicken and the egg syndrome.

Have a go at this site - http://www.nfh.org.uk/ - they also have a forum and was setup up purely for people like your mum.