Summary: Mrs X complains about works the Council carried out on a woodland site, the behaviour of its employees and its failure to follow the complaints process. The Ombudsman does not consider the work on the woodland or failures in the complaint process caused her significant personal injustice. And we consider the Council’s apology for an officer’s comments to be a sufficient remedy to this part of her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council is:
• ignoring European Union law and Natural England directives about wildlife and habitat
• failing to follow planning law
• failing to follow its complaints procedure; and
• overlooking poor behaviour by employees

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mrs X, including the Council’s responses to her complaint. She commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X complained to the Council that she had seen workers cutting down trees and destroying a woodland site. She says this site is known for badger setts, slow worms, and other wildlife. She says when she questioned the supervisor, he was dismissive and threatened to call the police.
5. The Council told Mrs X the site is part of a larger housing development approved several years ago, and that it had adopted the site as an area of open space. It also says it had removed self-set trees and scrub and was returning the site to its original state before the location of a children’s play area is finalised. The Council confirmed it knows about the badger sett and other wildlife. It says the work took place outside the breeding seasons in accordance with environmental guidance.
6. After some correspondence between the Council and Mrs X, the Council apologised if the actions of its officer had been intimidating, saying this was not his intent.
7. The Council responded to Mrs X slowly, but I consider it has responded to her concerns in full.
8. I understand Mrs X made her complaints out of genuine concern for the local community. However, I do not consider the issues she raises about the work on the wood has caused her any significant personal injustice.
9. While the Ombudsman expects Councils to follow their complaints procedures, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we do not intend to deal with the substantive issue.
10. The Council has apologised to Mrs X if the behaviour of its officer caused offence or made her feel intimidating. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy to this part of her complaint, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman