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


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bristol City Council (20 009 531)

    Statement Upheld Trees 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: The Council had failed to respond to Mr X's complaint about its decision to approve works to a protected tree. We found the Council suitably put matters right when it then apologised and replied to the complaint.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 060)

    Statement Upheld Trees 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for damage to his car caused by a falling tree branch. We cannot determine legal claims about liability for negligence and the Council has agree to settle his claim.

  • Erewash Borough Council (20 008 791)

    Statement Upheld Trees 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with unauthorised works they reported to protected trees. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to their reports. However, there was fault in the way a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was originally made. The Council remedied the complaint appropriately by apologising to Mr and Mrs X for the impact this had in the local area.

  • Bristol City Council (20 012 334)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 30-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains, on behalf of a campaign group, that the Council failed to properly consider their representations about the ownership of a strip of land which contained protected trees. We decided we should discontinue our investigation into Mr X's complaint. This is because the central issue is a boundary dispute that we cannot resolve. We also considered we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome through an investigation.

  • Lichfield District Council (20 011 249)

    Statement Upheld Trees 18-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to impose a planning condition on a planning permission for development on land next to his home. Mr X said that because of this failure, trees and a hedge that protect his outlook are no longer protected. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision causing injustice to Mr X and others, which it has agreed to remedy.

  • South Oxfordshire District Council (20 011 756)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 16-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr A says he was unable to work for a day because the Council failed to notify him when his damaged car could be collected from a car park. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely we would find fault or could add to previous investigation by the Council.

  • Harlow District Council (20 006 906)

    Statement Upheld Trees 11-May-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains about delay and a lack of clarity regarding works to trees near his home. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council and intends to uphold the complaint and complete the investigation because the Council agrees to pay Mr D redress.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 142)

    Statement Upheld Trees 07-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council has delayed in dealing with her complaint about a dangerous tree. Mrs Y says the tree overhangs her garden shed and could cause damage to the roof and valuable objects inside. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council has dealt with Mrs Y's report of a dangerous tree.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 000 939)

    Statement Upheld Trees 09-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council mistakenly cut back a tree he owns which was on his private land. The Council accepted it was wrong to cut Mr X's tree and it agreed to offer him a remedy.

  • Horsham District Council (20 006 285)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to transfer a tree preservation order from a felled oak tree to a replacement sapling near his home. The Council was not at fault. The replacement sapling was planted under a condition of the Tree Preservation decision notice, which gave permission to fell the oak tree. The Council decided not to award the replacement sapling with a tree preservation order. There was no fault in that decision.