Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s failure to cut back trees on land at the back of his garden. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that Wokingham Borough Council will not cut back overhanging trees on land at the back of his garden, or tell him how he should go about doing this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. And I considered Mr Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr Q contacted the Council about trees on land at the back of his garden. He said the trees were overhanging his garden, and a branch had fallen off, narrowly missing seriously injuring his son.
5. The Council told Mr Q it did not own or maintain the land, and did not hold details of land owned by third parties. It advised him to contact Land Registry. Mr Q contacted Land Registry but it had no details of who owned the land.
6. Mr Q contacted the Council again. Following further investigation, the Council sent Mr Q a map which showed it did not own the land, and that any trees bordering the land and Mr Q’s garden were not on or near a highway. The Council also told Mr Q the following:

• the map showed the land was in private ownership;
• the landowner was responsible for maintaining the trees;
• the Council had no enforcement powers unless the trees were a risk to the public highway;
• the trees were protected by a tree protection order (TPO);
• if Mr Q could not find the owner of the land he could apply to do works to the trees himself.

7. The Council also sent Mr Q leaflets which explained, among other things:

• that applications to do works to trees protected by a TPO should be made to the Council; and
• he did not need the consent of the owner of the trees to cut back any part of the trees to his boundary.

8. Mr Q is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He believes that as no one knows who owns the land, the trees become the Council’s responsibility by default. Mr Q is also unhappy that the Council did not tell him who he should serve papers on regarding the TPO. And he believes the Council should pay to cut back the trees, or reimburse him if he does this himself.

Analysis

9. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. The Council has provided a map showing that it does not own the land. The landowner is responsible for maintaining the trees, therefore. The map also shows that the trees Mr Q complains of are not near a public highway. So the Council has no enforcement powers regarding the trees.
11. This is, in effect, a private dispute between Mr Q and the neighbouring landowner. I recognise that no one knows who the landowner is. But that does not mean the Council is responsible for maintaining the trees, as Mr Q seems to think. It is not.
12. It is open to Mr Q to make his own application to do works to the protected trees. The information the Council sent Mr Q explained that the application should be made to the Council. The information also explained that he did not need the owner’s consent to do works to the trees.
13. In summary, therefore, the Council is not responsible for maintaining the trees, or for reimbursing Mr Q if he maintains them. And it has provided information to Mr Q explaining an application regarding the protected trees should be made to the Council. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman