Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has declined his request to maintain trees close to his property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr A, complains that the Council has declined his request to maintain trees close to his property.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mrs A has said in support of his complaint and the relevant Council policy document. I have also considered Mr A’s response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr A says trees owned by the Council overhang his property. He says they drop branches and block light. He also says a root has caused damage to his boundary wall. He has asked the Council to carry out works to address the issues and complains that it has declined to do so.
5. The correspondence Mr A has provided shows that a Tree Officer carried out a site visit in response to Mr A’s concerns. He decided that works were unnecessary. In its response to Mr A’s subsequent formal complaint it set out how it applied its tree management policy and confirmed how its inspection schedule would apply in future. Mr A regards the Council’s position as unreasonable.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. Whether works to the tree are necessary is a matter for the professional judgement of the Tree Officer, informed by the relevant policies, not the Ombudsman. There is no evidence of fault in the way that judgment was applied, or that the decision did not comply with the Council’s tree policy. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the officer’s decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
7. If Mr A believes the trees have caused damage to his property, his recourse is to make a claim against the Council. Ultimately, this may be a matter for the courts. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage to property. The court can do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman