Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a blocked gutter he says was due to the time taken for the Council to carry out work to a tree. This is because we cannot establish liability in claims involving damage to property.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the time taken by the Council to carry out work to a tree overhanging his property. Mr X says delay by the Council meant his gutter became blocked. Mr X had to pay for the gutter to be unblocked and wants the Council to reimburse him. Mr X also complains about the time and trouble he has spent pursuing his complaint.

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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 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

5. Mr X contacted the Council about a tree overhanging his property. Mr X says the Council said it would carry out work to the tree in “6-8 weeks”. Mr X says it took the Council nine months to carry out the work, by which point his gutter had become blocked due to leaves and conkers falling from the tree. Mr X had to pay £50 to have the gutter unblocked. Mr X wants the Council to refund the £50 and pay a further £50 for his time and trouble. The Council has refused Mr X’s claim and has referred to its published policy which says “tree debris (falling leaves, fruit or cones) – this is not a ‘legal nuisance’ and is regarded as a natural process”. The Council has denied liability for the damage caused to Mr X’s property.
6. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. But the issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint is about damage to his property, and if it was due to the Council’s negligence. The Ombudsman cannot establish liability in such matters. These are decisions for the Council’s insurers, and ultimately, the courts. If the Council’s insurers reject a formal claim from Mr X, it is open to him to make a claim in court. The Court can then decide if the Council has been negligent and what damages, if any, the Council should pay. These are not decisions the Ombudsman can taken and so an investigation is not appropriate.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his complaint and the time and trouble he has spent pursuing it. But the Ombudsman will not investigate complaint handling if we are not going to look at the issue which led to the original complaint. This applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because we cannot establish liability in claims involving damage to property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman