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:

  • Charnwood Borough Council (21 002 497)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to consider an application to amend planning permission to be a non-material amendment. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision.

  • London Borough of Ealing (21 001 859)

    Statement Upheld Trees 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: The Council wrongly promised to complete works to a tree outside Mr B's house. This raised Mr B's expectations. The Council took no action for a year; because of this it completed the works as a gesture of goodwill but failed to explain this to Mr B to manage his future expectations. The Council acknowledged Mr B's complaint on three occasions over the year, but never investigated or provided a response until Mr B involved the Ombudsman. The Council has apologised for failures in service, but to recognise Mr B's unnecessary time, trouble, and frustration the Council will pay £100.

  • Leicester City Council (21 003 097)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 18-Nov-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it approved planning permission for a development near to Mr X's home.

  • City of York Council (21 005 049)

    Statement Upheld Trees 05-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of trees from a local park. This is because the Council has already offered a proportionate remedy and there is not enough significant injustice remaining to justify our investigation.

  • Worcestershire County Council (21 000 007)

    Statement Upheld Trees 26-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs J complains about a failure by the relevant local authorities to take action against her neighbours who have allegedly encroached highway land and breached their respective planning permissions. We have not seen any evidence of fault by the highway authority with respect to how it determined the ownership of the land in question. Further, there is no evidence of fault by the planning authority in how it decided to not take discretionary enforcement action. The law says we cannot question the merits of a council decision in the absence of fault. There was however evidence of fault in the way the highway authority considered Mrs J's complaint. This caused her an injustice and so we have recommended a small financial payment be made.

  • North Somerset Council (20 013 767)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 03-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council decided which sites to rewild; it has no documents to show how it chose the site opposite his house. I have found no significant fault by the Council warranting further investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 009 317)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 26-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to address her concerns after it approved applications relating a tree in her garden and a flat in the building that she lives in. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault or an injustice we could remedy.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 892)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 20-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to protect a tree subject to a Tree Protection Order and take enough action against her neighbour for unlawful works to the tree. As a result, she said she experienced distress due to the irreparable harm to the tree. We found the Council properly considered Mrs C's concerns and followed its policy. It reached a decision it was entitled to reach; we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

  • Bristol City Council (20 005 721)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 19-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's inadequate investigation and unreasonable decision not to take enforcement action against works affecting a protected tree. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision.

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (20 010 852)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 12-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr D says the Council incorrectly stated he had carried out unauthorised works to protected trees in 2020. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.