Summary: Mr X complains about the removal of a tree opposite his parent’s home. And the way the Council has responded to his requests for information and complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s decision to remove the tree. And we do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice on this matter which warrants the Ombudsman’s involvement. And Mr X can complain to the ICO if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his requests for information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council removed tree because of an insurance claim without clear evidence the tree was the cause of the damage. He says the removal was a waste of time as the stump is sprouting again. He wants the Council to apologise for this and replace the tree.
2. He also complains about the time taken to respond to his complaint and how it responded to his requests for information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

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

4. . We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and checked the details with him. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council removed a tree from a verge opposite the house belonging to Mr X’s parents. In response to Mr X’s enquiries, the Council told him the tree was removed following an insurance claim for structural damage to a nearby property.
8. Mr X asked for information to show the tree was responsible for the alleged structural damage. He is not satisfied with the Council’s answer.

Assessment

9. The tree was not under a preservation order. It was the Council’s property on Council land. The Council does not have to consult anyone about removing such a tree. Following a claim for structural damage the Council followed the advice from its insurers and removed the tree. This Council was entitled to take this action and I have not seen any evidence of fault.
10. Mr X says the loss of the tree has an impact on the local amenity. However, he does not live near the site and I do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants investigation.
11. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his freedom of information requests and complaint.
12. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his complaints about the way the Council dealt with his requests for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the body with specific powers and expertise to investigate Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with access to information law.
13. About the way the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint we expect a Council to follow its complaints procedure. But we will not consider this matter on its own as we do not consider there to be sufficient injustice because of failings in the complaints process alone, which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided to remove the tree. And I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice. And Mr X can complain to the ICO if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his requests for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman