Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (19 014 357)

Category : Environment and regulation > Trees

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 27 Jan 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune or fell trees close to his home. This is because the complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to prune or fell trees close to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to prune or fell trees close to his home. Mr X says the trees block the light to his property and lead to issues such as blocked gutters. Mr X says there have been requests to prune the trees dating to 2008.
  2. A council officer has visited the site and decided the trees would not tolerate the pruning required to have a positive impact. The Council accepts there is an impact on the light to Mr X’s property, but says the environmental benefit of the trees outweighs the negative impact on Mr X’s home. The Council has explained its policy is not to remove healthy trees located on its land. Mr X has appealed to the Council’s ‘Tree Appeal Panel’ made up of elected members. The panel supported the decision not to prune or fell the trees.
  3. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. Mr X says the issue complained about dates to 2008. I see no reason Mr X could not have complained much earlier, and so the exception at paragraph 2 applies to his complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the point I make below.
  4. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not an appeal body and cannot question a council’s decision if there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council has considered Mr X's request and provided proportionate and reasonable responses. It has explained its decision which is in line with its published policy. Mr X’s appeal was considered by councillors who upheld the decision not to prune or fell the trees. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. Once again, the decision is in line with the Council’s published policy. So, even if Mr X’s complaint was not late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings