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 2019-2020


Archive has 117 results

  • London Borough of Lewisham (19 019 722)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council's tree is damaging her gate and fence. The complaint is late. Also, she can ask the courts to decide whether the Council is liable for the damage.

  • Plymouth City Council (19 011 709)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 30-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her concerns about overgrown vegetation and overhanging trees near to her property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 016 956)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 30-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's refusal to remove a tree from the highway which is close to their property boundary. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a complaint about matters outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 013 670)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not cut back trees and shrubbery growing on Council owned land at the back of his garden. The Council was not at fault.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 017 170)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that a Council owned tree damaged his fence. This is a matter for the courts to decide.

  • Surrey County Council (19 010 536)

    Statement Upheld Trees 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled an issue with a tree on their land. They said the poor communication and delay caused them unnecessary distress and worry. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council for delaying a site visit. We do not consider this to have caused a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 017 550)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint about the actions of the Council in its role as a social landlord.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 018 414)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 21-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has declined to prune a tree outside his property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part.

  • Herefordshire Council (19 018 440)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council the Council has misled him and wrongly decided to prosecute him. The Ombudsman will not investigate his complaint as the matters complained of have been considered by the courts and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. Also, his complaint is too late.

  • Stafford Borough Council (19 018 173)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs Q's complaint about the accuracy of the Council's records regarding a protected tree, or associated matters. This is because the injustice they have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with their request for documents.