Summary: Miss X complained about the Council designating woodland at the rear of her property as an area of protected trees. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council sending her a letter informing her that it was designating ancient woodland behind her home as a protected area of trees. She says she was shocked at the tone of the letter and any effect it may have on her rights of access.

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, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X says she received a letter from the Council in 2018 informing her that it would be introducing Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) on trees in ancient woodland at the rear of her property. She says she was shocked by the tone of the letter which advised her that she could make comments or objections by a certain deadline. The Council also explained to Miss X the procedure for applying to carry out maintenance work to the protected trees.
5. The Council says the letter was a standard information letter required when TPO’s are to be introduced and it simply advised residents of the procedure and their rights. The TPO procedure has no impact on rights of access to the woodland.
6. The Council issued information letters as part of the TPO process and there was nothing in the text which should have caused offence to Miss X. The Ombudsman will not investigate where there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman