Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to cut trees on Ms B’s street, or for its consideration of allegations she made against its officers. The Council has explained its decisions in respect of both matters, and the explanations do not appear unreasonable.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, complains that the Council cut down some laurel trees across the road from her house. She says that, since the trees were planted 20 years ago, the Council had just trimmed them. She says the recent decision to cut the trees down meant they had become an eyesore, and no longer helped reduce traffic noise and pollution from the motorway on the other side of them.
2. Ms B also complains that Council officers were unprofessional when she raised concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Ms B about her complaint, and considered information from Ms B and the Council.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. Ms B has lived in her house since 1999, and there have been laurel trees across the road since she moved in. The trees form part of a border (which also includes bushes) between the housing estate she lives on and a motorway. She says the trees help reduce the sound of the motorway.
8. Ms B says the Council, for 20 years, has trimmed the bushes and trees to stop them becoming overgrown. She says it told her in 2019 that it would be ‘pruning’ the trees; however, she says it turned up in July 2019 and cut them much more extensively, creating a “gaping hole”, with some trees cut down to the roots.
9. Ms B complained to the Council about this. She said that, by not cutting the trees down to the roots in the preceding 20 years, it had “set a precedent” which should have been continued.
10. The Council told Ms B that some of the trees were reaching early maturity and it needed to inspect them to make sure they did not present a danger to nearby properties. It said its access was restricted and it had been prevented from carrying out tree inspections and maintenance. It also said the undergrowth at the side of the road was, in some places, obscuring road signs.
11. The Council said that, for these two reasons, it decided to ‘coppice’ shrubs and small trees (i.e. cut them to ground level) to a distance of four metres from the kerb. It said it would allow the coppiced stumps to grow again, and when they start growing there will be no ongoing impact to the character or amenity of
    Ms B’s home (including from motorway noise).
12. Over the course of her complaint Ms B spoke to a council officer on the telephone and met the head of service. She felt that both were rude and aggressive to her, and were unprofessional. She complained to the Council about the conduct of both officers.
13. The Council considered this complaint and spoke to the officers involved. It told Ms B that both officers felt that Ms B was rude to them. They said she refused to accept their explanation for the works, and one officer said she turned her back on him and said she would not speak to him because he was unprofessional. Both officers raised concerns about her manner during telephone conversations.
14. The Council decided that, based on its conversations with the officers in question, Ms B’s account of her interactions with them misrepresented the way they had acted, and it did not consider further action necessary.

My findings

15. Although I can understand why Ms B is upset that some of the trees across the road from her house – which have never been properly cut down before – now look much worse than they did before they were cut, I must consider whether the Council’s actions – however upsetting – amount to maladministration.
16. There is no specific legislation or guidance which prevented the Council from cutting the trees on Ms B’s street, and there were no Tree Preservation Orders for the plants in question. However, I expect that, when a council makes a decision which affects a member of the public, it has good reasons for that decision, and it explains those reasons when asked.
17. In Ms B’s case the Council has explained why it needed access to some of the trees, and, in my view, its explanation is not unreasonable. Although it may be some time before the trees grow back, the Council has justified its actions and has decided the impact to Ms B will reduce over time.
18. Because of this, I have been unable to identify maladministration in the Council’s decision, and I have not found that it was at fault.
19. With regard to Ms B’s complaint about officer conduct, I again note that she feels very strongly that she has been mistreated. However, it is understandably very difficult for me to make a decision on exactly what happened in these situations, as there is little evidence beyond the conflicting accounts of different parties.
20. The Ombudsman does not investigate the conduct of individual members of staff, as we investigate maladministration, which concerns councils, not individuals. We do not get involved in disciplinary matters.
21. However, I expect that, if a council receives an allegation about the behaviour of an officer, it looks into the allegation, makes any enquiries it considers necessary, and explains its decision to the complainant.
22. In Ms B’s case the Council did look into her allegations, and, having discussed them with its officers, reached a conclusion on the complaint and explained this to Ms B. In the absence of any evidence which would suggest that the Council’s conclusion was unreasonable, I cannot say the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council was not at fault for its decision to cut trees on Ms B’s street, or for its consideration of allegations she made against its officers.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman