Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further action against a neighbour who lopped a Council owned tree. Mrs X also raises concerns about Council corruption, nepotism, collusion with police and the way it handled her complaint. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would find fault with the way the Council reached its decision showing a significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the previous investigation by the Council. The Ombudsman cannot investigate police matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that a neighbour has lopped public trees without permission.
2. Mrs X says a neighbour has damaged her property and verbally attacked her husband. Mrs X says the Council has colluded with the police so the police would close its investigation.
3. Mrs X says the Council has abused and humiliated her during a telephone call.
4. Mrs X says the Council is corrupt and suspects it of nepotism.
5. Mrs X says the Council has failed to deal with this matter, tell her of its complaints procedure and respond to correspondence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We cannot investigate a complaint about action taken by, or on behalf of, any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 2, as amended)
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I have written to Mrs X with my draft decision and considered her response.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mrs X complained to the Council about a neighbour lopping trees on Council land without permission.
11. When a person raises concerns with a Council about tree damage, in line with its Tree Policy, the Council says that it will assess the damage to a tree by sending an arboricultural officer.
12. The Council’s arboricultural officer attended the site and determined that a tree had been pruned without permission.
13. The Council delivered a warning letter to the person who pruned the tree. The Council decided not to take the matter further or seek compensation.
14. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take further action. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot question a council’s decision if there was no fault in the way the council reached the decision.
15. Government guidance advises local planning authorities can convict and issue fines for illegal tree felling or pruning. But enforcement action is discretionary. Councils can also issue warnings. The Council reached its decision in line with its policy and Government guidance. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.

Police action

16. Mrs X raised concerns of damage to property and the verbal attack with the Council, she confirmed the police have also looked into this matter.
17. It is reasonable for the Council to allow the police to investigate matters of intimidation or criminal damage according to its anti-social behaviour policy.
18. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the police or its decision to close a police investigation.

Telephone call abuse and humiliation

19. Mrs X says the Council abused and humiliated her during a telephone call in June 2019.
20. We were not present during the call between Mrs X and the Council worker. The Ombudsman cannot take a view on the content of a call when we have not witnessed it. It is unlikely a further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Corruption and nepotism

21. Mrs X says the Council is corrupt as it tried to close her complaint in June 2019 without correctly looking into the complaint.
22. The Council accepted that it should not have closed the complaint in June 2019. It has put in place a new system to ensure complaints of this nature are referred to the arborist.
23. I would not consider that this mistake is demonstrative of corruption. A further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the previous investigation by the Council.
24. Mrs X suspects nepotism of the Council towards her neighbour due to the lack of action taken.
25. Enforcement action for tree lopping is discretionary. The Council has sent a warning letter to Mrs X’s neighbour in line with its policy. We would not consider that deciding against further action is nepotism as this is in line with Council policy.

Council complaints procedure

26. Mrs X says the Council failed to respond to two letters or inform her of its complaint’s procedure.
27. It is not a good use public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
28. The failure to respond to these two letters or provide details of the complaint’s procedure would not show a significant enough personal injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

29. My decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further action against a neighbour who lopped a Council owned tree. Mrs X also raises concerns about Council corruption, nepotism, collusion with police and the way it handled her complaint. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would find fault with the way the Council reached its decision showing a significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the previous investigation by the Council. The Ombudsman cannot investigate police matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman