Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove trees from behind his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to remove trees from behind his property. He says the trees block light into his house, there are branches overhanging his garden, and falling leaves and bird droppings cause problems.

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 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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council has responded to complaints from Mr X about the trees behind his home and the impact they are having. It has already carried out some minor pruning to the trees. The Council has explained it inspects the trees every thirteen months and an officer has recently visited the site. The Council’s view is the trees are healthy. There is one tree that is causing a particular problem, but the Council has told Mr X nothing further can be done “without spoiling the shape and character of the tree”. It has said that further work will be carried out to nearby trees to reduce the “overall canopy”.
5. Information on the Council’s website explains that it is not responsible for fallen leaves or damage from bird droppings. It says the Council will only cut back overhanging branches if they are damaging property or the tree is hazardous. The website explains there is no “right to light” and the Council will not normally remove or prune trees that block light – unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Council says that “Trees and woodland will normally only be felled for purposes of safety, access management, timber production, conservation and heritage preservation.” The Council’s policy on trees is in line with that operated by many councils.
6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no fault or flaw in the decision-making process. The Council has visited the site and provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to Mr X’s complaints. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, but this is not evidence of fault. The Council has applied its published policy to the issues raised by Mr X. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision. An investigation by the Ombudsman into Mr X’s complaint is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman