Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove a tree which is next to the complainant’s garden. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not remove a tree that over-hangs his garden. He says the tree drops beech nuts which have injured his family. He says the Council needs to remove the tree due to the continuing health and safety risk to his family.

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 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 read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the Council’s tree policy and looked at an image of the tree on streetview. I considered photographs provided by Mr X and comments he made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tree policy

4. The Council inspects street trees every four years and does maintenance work when required. A qualified tree officer does the inspections. The Council prunes a tree to minimise hazards and to ensure a sustainable tree population. The Council does not do tree work for problems linked to loss of light or falling debris (leaves, fruit etc).

What happened

5. There is a beech tree on the pavement next to Mr X’s home. Some of the branches over-hang Mr X’s garden. Mr X says beech nuts fall from the tree and are a health and safety risk. He says his family cannot use the garden because they have been cut by beech nuts. Mr X also says the nuts have damaged his lawn and tree roots have damaged his fence. Mr X says the tree blocks light from his garden and many leaves fall onto the lawn. Mr X says the tree is too tall and is unsuitable for a residential area. Mr X wants the Council to replace the tree with a more suitable tree. He says councillors support his request but the Council does not agree. Mr X disagrees with the findings of the Council’s tree officers. Mr X has not said he has any qualifications in tree management.
6. In response to his complaint the Council explained the tree is regularly inspected and pruned when required. It said the pruning has altered the shape of the tree canopy to reduce the impact on Mr X’s garden. It said the tree was pruned last year and no further work is needed at the moment. It also explained that it had previously refused a request to remove the tree. The Council does not agree that beech nuts are a hazard and said Mr X can reduce any problems they cause by sweeping them up. It invited Mr X to make a claim on the Council’s insurance regarding any damage caused to his property. It also said he can cut branches back to the boundary.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have seen the records which show the tree is regularly inspected and work was done in 2015 and 2019. An officer inspected the tree in 2020 as part of the complaint response and confirmed that no work is currently needed. The inspection records show that at each inspection the tree was found to be in a good condition. In addition, while I appreciate Mr X is unhappy regarding a loss of light and the beech nuts, the Council’s policy says it will not do work for reasons associated with these problems. It has, however, explained that Mr X can reduce the impact by sweeping up leaves or nuts. Mr X says this is an inappropriate comment but sweeping leaves and other debris is part of normal household maintenance.
8. Mr X says the tree should be replaced. However, the view of the tree officer is that the tree is in a good condition and does not pose a risk. It is not fault for the Council to follow the professional advice of its tree officer and refuse Mr X’s request. It is also not fault for the Council to follow the opinion of its Health and Safety officer who said beech nuts are not hazardous. I appreciate Mr X disagrees but it is not my role to question the professional opinion of a tree officer and there is no suggestion of fault because the Council’s actions are consistent with officers’ advice and the tree policy. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman