Privacy settings

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.

Trees archive 2016-2017


Archive has 65 results

  • Norwich City Council (16 006 656)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is no fault with how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

  • London Borough of Harrow (16 018 301)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about the Council's refusal to cover the cost of works to repair damage caused by tree roots. He cannot establish whether the Council is liable. The matter may be decided in court.

  • Reading Borough Council (16 018 630)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint that the Council has refused to prune a tree because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council's part.

  • Staffordshire County Council (16 007 230)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal to remove or prune trees in the highway opposite his home. He says his property is suffering cracking from the roots of the trees. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Liability for property damage due to negligence is a private legal matter for which Mr X could seek a remedy in the courts.

  • London Borough of Havering (16 015 323)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's refusal to accept liability for damage to their property caused by a large highway tree. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The courts can and do consider questions of liability for damage to property. There is no reason why Mr and Mrs X should not pursue their claim in the courts if their insurers are unable to convince the Council of liability.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 017 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A's complaint that the Council has failed to adequately prune a tree because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council's part.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 008 350)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to take adequate action to carry out root pruning to one of its trees outside the front of his house which has caused damage to his property and garden. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and we will not pursue the complaint any further.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (16 017 803)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 16-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's failure to accept responsibility for maintenance of a tree. Investigation cannot establish responsibility for the tree and cannot therefore achieve what Mr A wants. Neither can it establish liability for damage to property. Only a court can do so.

  • Test Valley Borough Council (16 008 533)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 13-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council has properly considered use of its discretionary powers to deal with problems caused by the poor condition of the garden of a private home. It has taken practical action to help those affected. There is no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Three Rivers District Council (16 008 428)

    Statement Upheld Trees 13-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr H's complaint about the way the Council dealt with his reports of his neighbour carrying out development without consent, damaging protected trees, and the way it dealt with his complaint. The Council delayed telling him about the decision not to prosecute, gave unclear information in an email, was slow to refer the case to the enforcement team, and failed to follow the complaint process. The Council was not at fault in the way it considered a retrospective planning application and the impact on the trees. The agreed action remedies any avoidable injustice caused.