Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Winchester City Council (19 004 742)

    Statement Upheld Trees 27-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's failure to cut the top of the hedge at the rear of his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the work has now been completed and there are no outstanding matters which warrant investigation.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 014 985)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 07-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council refused to trim a hedge, did not trim the hedge when it said it would, ignored his requests to share its legal advice with him, and did not deal with his complaint in line with its procedure. Mr X says this has cost him time and trouble. He says the Council has not answered his questions, has ignored his evidence, and the hedge has caused damage to his car. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Canterbury City Council (18 010 066)

    Statement Upheld Trees 28-May-2019

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with work to trees in a conservation area next to the complainant's home. The Council failed to record its reasons for not making a Tree Preservation Order and it was not clear that its assessment of the site has been thorough. It failed to follow its complaints process. This caused the complainant frustration and uncertainty as she had to raise matters with the Council and the Ombudsman. The Council should apologise to the complainant and share this decision with staff reminding that reasons for decisions should be properly recorded.

  • London Borough of Harrow (18 005 368)

    Statement Upheld Trees 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr K complains about a charge the Council made for replacing a tree that needed removing to carry out a planning permission. He says the Council should never have planted the tree there. Mr K also complains about the Council's complaint handling. The Ombudsman has upheld the part of the complaint about the complaint handling and has asked the Council to apologise.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (18 000 594)

    Statement Upheld Trees 02-May-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to keep Mr X informed when it decided to issue a TPO on his clients but later reversed that decision. The Council should write to Mr X to apologise and pay him £150 for avoidable frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused. There was no fault in advice the Council gave Mr X about work to trees in a conservation area.

  • East Devon District Council (18 010 423)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to use proper process when deciding not to include a tree in an adjacent garden in a tree preservation order. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault.

  • Cambridge City Council (18 005 229)

    Statement Upheld Trees 14-Mar-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a residential development with balconies which overlook her property. The Council has accepted fault in the way it communicated with Miss X and has apologised. I have discontinued my investigation into how the Council dealt with the planning permission and possible enforcement action as the Council is still actively considering these matters.

  • Ribble Valley Borough Council (18 012 966)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 07-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council responded to the cutting down of two trees which had tree preservation orders on them. He also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint about the issue. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint because Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council's actions.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 018 870)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not find the Council acted with fault in refusing to carry out works to trees next to residents' homes.

  • Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (18 006 405)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council should not have approved a development which, he says, will damage a tree near his property. The Council was not at fault. The Council tree officer's decision that the development posed minimal risk to the tree was a professional one open to him on the facts.