Trees archive 2020-2021


Archive has 108 results

  • Woking Borough Council (20 008 838)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 18-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure that protected trees owned by him and other residents were not harmed by work carried out by the management company for his leasehold property. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 414)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 14-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in connection with a Tree Preservation Order it placed on a tree at his property. We will not investigate the complaint because Mr X had and has appeal rights to challenge the Council’s decisions in relation to the Order.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (20 008 424)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 12-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing to take action in response to damage to his property caused by a highway tree. This is because it is open to Mr B to pursue the matter in court and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

  • South Cambridgeshire District Council (19 002 119)

    Statement Upheld Trees 12-Jan-2021

    Summary: The Council delayed deciding whether to place a Tree Preservation Order on woodland near Mrs B’s home and delayed dealing with her complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B, decide whether to place a Tree Preservation Order on the woodland and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • South Kesteven District Council (20 005 943)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 11-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly notify him about his neighbour’s proposed work to trees in his garden on the property boundary. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 007 259)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 21-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council landlord’s failure to resolve a problem with root damage from a neighbouring protected tree. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns management of a leased property by a social housing landlord and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 777)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 16-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision not to do works to or remove a tree next to Mrs X’s back garden. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has made its decision and applied its policy to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (20 007 096)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 16-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council refusing her application to carry out pruning work on a neighbour’s tree which is protected by a preservation order (TPO). We should not exercise discretion investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which is the proper authority to consider appeals about TPO decisions.

  • Bristol City Council (20 007 077)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 14-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to compensate him for damage to his property when a tree on Council land caused damage in a storm. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns liability for damage to property and only insurers and the courts can decide this.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (19 017 816)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 10-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly made a tree preservation order on his trees, caused him to delay making a planning application for housing and breached data protection. Mr X had legal remedies to challenge some Council decisions and complains late about actions in 2018. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the removal of the tree preservation orders. Mr X may go to the Information Commissioner about the handling of personal data.

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