Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision not to do works to or remove a tree next to Mrs X’s back garden. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has made its decision and applied its policy to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y is Mrs X’s neighbour. Mrs X has a large tree owned by the Council near her back garden boundary. Mrs Y complained the Council has:
1. unfairly refused to do work to or remove the tree;
2. delayed in responding to the complaint.
2. Mrs Y says the tree blocks light to Mrs X’s garden and house. This has caused stress and depression to Mrs X and her husband, especially while they shielded during the pandemic. The light loss also results in increased costs for heating, drying clothes and lighting. Mrs Y says Mrs X has reported the tree’s roots are causing damage to her patio. The tree’s leaves also make the garden slippery, making Mrs X’s husband’s access to the garden difficult. Mrs X wants the Council to prune the tree or remove it, and to respond promptly to future complaints.

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. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X and Mrs Y;
• viewed relevant online maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X and Mrs Y to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X has had concerns about the tree for about 20 years. The Council has assessed the tree several times since 2007 and decided not to prioritise work to it. In response to Mrs X’s latest complaint, the Council’s officers inspected the tree again and found no damage or disease.
7. The Council has explained how it applies its limited resources for tree management. Funding and work is prioritised where a tree poses immediate risk to people or property. Officers will resist requests for tree works or removal where the issues raised are those such as fallen leaf nuisance or loss of light.
8. We can only go behind a council’s professional judgement decision if there is evidence of fault in the assessment process followed which would have resulted in officers making a different decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by officers here in the way they have applied their policy and explained it to Mrs X for us to criticise the officers’ decision. They reassessed the tree for damage or disease, then followed their policy on the retention of healthy trees and on the prioritisation of their work, using information received from the assessment and the complaint. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees
9. The Council officers explained to Mrs X that she may decide to remove any part of the tree encroaching on her land. Where such work is done, if it results in harm to the tree, it could be the responsibility of the person who did the work. So Mrs X may wish to consult a tree specialist before doing any such work.
10. I note Mrs X says the tree is damaging her patio. If Mrs X considers the Council’s tree is responsible for damage to her property, that would be an insurance matter. The documents I have seen show the Council provided Mrs X with the information to make a claim against them, should she wish to do so.
11. We will not consider a complaint about a council’s internal complaint process in isolation, where we do not intend to investigate the core issue giving rise to the complaint. That limitation applies here, so I do not intend to investigate the part of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s own complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. My decision is we should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation;
• we should not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaints processes when not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman