My dad’s neighbour wants to cut down hedges that have given him privacy for years. Can he stop them? DEAN DUNHAM replies

My father has a fence at the end of his garden. 

There’s a new neighbour who lives on the other side of it who wants to remove the trees and hedges on her side but which have given my father privacy for 20 years. What are his rights?

G.G., via email.

Dean Dunham replies: The first step is for your father to speak to his new neighbour, explain his position and ask nicely if they can reach a compromise. As I always say, do all you can to stay friendly with your neighbours.

If this approach does not work, your father will need to do some initial due diligence to establish the following three key points.

Firstly, who actually owns the trees and hedges? If they are jointly owned by your father, his rights will be stronger and indeed clearer and in these circumstances it will be easier for him to stop his neighbour removing them.

Secondly, are there any tree preservation orders (TPOs) in place? Some trees are protected under TPOs, which means they cannot be cut down or pruned without special permission from the local council.

Thirdly, are there any relevant local regulations in place? Different councils may have specific regulations regarding tree cutting, so it’s essential to check local laws.

If your father does not find any assistance from these three points, his only other option is to turn to the law, and to one that may help known as the Prescription Act 1832.   

This law primarily deals with what’s known as ‘acquisition of easements’, such as rights of way or rights to light, but it does not specifically cover the right to privacy from trees. 

However, where a householder has enjoyed privacy from trees for more than 20 years, as in your father’s case, it is potentially possible to argue for a prescriptive easement related to the trees.

However, please note this would be a novel and complex legal argument and in these circumstances I always advise using a specialist solicitor.  

Should partner’s employer pay for missed flight? 

My partner was on a work trip overseas and due to arrive back last Friday so we could go away for a long weekend in Prague. 

Unfortunately his flight back was cancelled and he’s had to pay for a new flight to join me. I think his work should pay for it – what are his rights?

B.M., via email.

Dean Dunham replies: The first port of call is to look at the employment contract and employee handbook (if there is one) to see if either document makes any provision for missed holidays or events due to business commitments.

If such provision is made this will naturally answer your question, but I fear this will not be the case.

In the absence of such provision, your partner’s employer will not have any liability so will have no legal obligation to reimburse the cost of the new flight.

Of course, that does not mean that his employer will not do just that if he asks.

There is potentially a second route your partner can take. As his return flight was cancelled with less than 14 days’ notice, the airline will have to pay compensation and it’s likely the prescribed amount it will have to pay will cover the cost of his new flight.

However, there will be two things to consider.

Firstly, what was the cause of the cancellation? If it was due to an event that falls within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the airline will not have to pay. 

These are typically events that are outside of the airline’s control, such as air traffic control strikes, baggage handler and security strikes, severe adverse weather and political unrest.

Most other matters, such as crew shortages and technical faults with the aircraft, will fall outside of the definition and therefore give rise to a compensation claim.

The second consideration is whether your partner is entitled to the compensation (if there is a valid claim) or if it will be his employer that will be entitled to the money.

There is a good argument that it should be your partner, as he was the passenger and the cancellation impacted his personal time and therefore did not cause any detriment to his employer.