Trees archive 2020-2021


Archive has 108 results

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 001 641)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 28-Jul-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about Council owned trees blocking light into the complainant’s property. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (19 007 655)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 21-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council erred in making a tree preservation order and that since that decision was made the tree has caused significant damage to his property, for which he considers the Council liable. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome, and significantly the question of liability for damage to Mr B’s property would be a matter for the courts to determine. The Ombudsman therefore discontinued his consideration of this complaint.

  • Luton Borough Council (20 000 938)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 20-Jul-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about some trees that the complainant would like the Council to remove or prune. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Leicester City Council (20 001 082)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 15-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has harassed him over many years in relation to the management of trees at his property which culminated in the Council taking him to court. This has caused Mr X stress and has impacted upon him financially. The Ombudsman will not investigate as much of Mr X’s complaint relates to events which took place more than 12 months ago and there are not good reasons to investigate now. The Ombudsman has no legal remit to investigate the Council’s legal action against Mr X as this has been dealt with in court.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 000 255)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 15-Jul-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council refused to prune two trees which overhang her property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.

  • London Borough of Harrow (19 009 515)

    Statement Upheld Trees 13-Jul-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about the length of time the Council has taken to remove a tree from the street outside her property that has caused damage to her boundary wall. The Council took too long to act on Ms X’s concerns and deal with her complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X, rebuild the wall and remove the garden waste bin without further delay. The Council will also review its procedures.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 744)

    Statement Upheld Trees 01-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his application to cut down a tree in his garden. He also said the Council concealed his application from public view. He said he was put to unnecessary time and trouble complaining to the Council. The Council was at fault when it incorrectly told Mr X his tree was covered by a Tree Protection Order. This caused Mr X to spend unnecessary time complaining to the Council. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £250 to Mr X to recognise the injustice he has suffered.

  • Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (19 009 250)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 29-Jun-2020

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to cut trees on Ms B’s street, or for its consideration of allegations she made against its officers. The Council has explained its decisions in respect of both matters, and the explanations do not appear unreasonable.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 013 181)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 29-Jun-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council has dealt with matters relating to trees on land he owns that are controlled by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Mr X believes the TPO is unnecessary and burdensome on him. We did not investigate this complaint further, because the original TPO decision was made outside our time limits for investigations, and decisions on applications for works on protected trees may be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 011 259)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 22-May-2020

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly respond and take effective action in response to his reports of overgrown vegetation affecting the public highway. Mr C says the view when accessing the highway is obscured as is a nearby streetlight. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.

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