On her deeds will be indication of who’s responsibility the boundary is. If there is a “T” on he side of the boundary it’s her responsibility to maintain a fence, wall or hedge – whatever she chooses. There is no legal obligation to have any barrier.
If the people who took the hedge down don’t have responsibility for the boundary it’s their tough luck. If they want a fence put there, they will have to ask you neighbour very nicely if she wants a fence and if she can’t afford it, tough luck. They could offer to pay for it if she hasn’t got the money. Her financial and legal obligation is zero! Things like this should be discussed and agreed amicably upfront so the other people were a bit stupid.
As per all neighbourhood disputes, talking to the neighbours is the first port of call. If these people had spoken to her about cutting down the hedge, this whole predicament could have been avoided. I do wonder why they didn’t trim and lower the hedge – the obvious thing to do when their neighbour is too strapped for cash to have a fence.
If it’s their boundary, they should pay for a new fence and not hassle this woman. In fact they should be apologising for any inconvenience whilst leaving her boundary unprotected.
She should think herself lucky that it isn’t the other way round where people let Leylandii grow unchecked, blocking out light, roots damaging foundations, or destroying expensive shrubs, ruining the enjoyment of a once pleasant private garden. Unfortunately local councils have made it expensive and difficult to apply what was a simple rule introduced in the high hedges bill. You would have thought a fixed maximum height for hedges would mean just that, but councils in their usual woolly vague manner of doing things have blurred a process that should have been quick and simple. People suffer huge stress over this matter and some have even died as a result of these conflicts. Shame on the faceless “couldn’t care less” attitude of councils for perpetuating this suffering!