Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow works to a protected tree. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the appeal rights available to him. It would not be a good use of public funds to investigate Mr X’s related concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for work to a tree which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Mr X has complained to the Council that the Tree Officer was “rude and sarcastic” and has asked for a second opinion. Mr X is unhappy with how his complaint has been dealt with.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not consider it is a good use of public money to investigate matters not separable from something the law says we should not investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I 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

5. There is a right of appeal to the Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government against any refusal by a council to allow works to a tree protected by a TPO. The appeal is considered by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Minister.
6. The exception at paragraph 2 therefore applies to Mr X’s complaint. If Mr X wants to challenge the Council’s decision, he can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. When such appeal rights exist, the Ombudsman normally expects a person to use them, unless it is unreasonable for them to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. Investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.
7. The actions of the Tree Officer and the Council’s complaint handling all flow from, and are linked to, the decision to refuse the application for works to the tree. The exception at paragraph 3 also therefore applies. We will not consider these matters given that we are not going to investigate the substantive issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the appeal rights available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman