Trees archive 2021-2022


Archive has 184 results

  • Worcestershire County Council (21 000 007)

    Statement Upheld Trees 26-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs J complains about a failure by the relevant local authorities to take action against her neighbours who have allegedly encroached highway land and breached their respective planning permissions. We have not seen any evidence of fault by the highway authority with respect to how it determined the ownership of the land in question. Further, there is no evidence of fault by the planning authority in how it decided to not take discretionary enforcement action. The law says we cannot question the merits of a council decision in the absence of fault. There was however evidence of fault in the way the highway authority considered Mrs J’s complaint. This caused her an injustice and so we have recommended a small financial payment be made.

  • Thanet District Council (21 007 888)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 26-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns about unauthorised works to a protected tree. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 504)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 25-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for tree root damage to property. Mrs X has submitted an insurance claim against the Council and it is reasonable for her to seek a court remedy if liability is not accepted by the Council.

  • London Borough of Havering (21 008 335)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 25-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about tree maintenance. There is not enough evidence the Council’s actions have caused Ms Z significant injustice. It would be reasonable for her pursue any damage to her property in court.

  • North Somerset Council (21 007 840)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 21-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a how the Council handled a planning application and a Tree Preservation Order. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

  • Lake District National Park Authority (21 008 238)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 18-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s publication of representations on a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Determination if someone has been defamed is a matter for the courts.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 006 789)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 13-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune some trees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Rutland County Council (21 007 691)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 12-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute between neighbours over an overgrown tree and bushes. This is a private matter between a private householder and a social housing landlord who is responsible for the neighbouring property. Boundary disputes are civil matters and the Ombudsman has no authority to investigate complaints about social housing landlords.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (21 007 356)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 11-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly maintain a tree outside the complainants business. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council dealt with the matter.

  • Leeds City Council (21 007 865)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 11-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the settlement of a claim for damage to property. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to pursue the matter in court.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings