Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 116)

Category : Environment and regulation > Trees

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 19 Aug 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr Y’s report of a fallen tree, which caused damage to his property. This is because the Council’s insurers or the courts are better placed than us to consider the matter.

The complaint

  1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to respond to his claim properly and promptly for costs to repair damage to his property’s rear wall. He also says the Council handled his complaint poorly.
  2. Mr Y says he cannot repair the wall until the Council approve his insurance claim and he has had to chase the Council repeatedly, causing him inconvenience and annoyance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

  1. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information Mr Y has provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. A tree planted on Council owned land fell during a storm in May 2020. The tree damaged the rear wall of Mr Y’s garden. Mr Y contacted the Council, asking it to remove the tree so he could repair the wall which the Council did in May. The Council told Mr Y he could make an insurance claim in June. Mr Y then complained about the lack of response to his claim in July, before contacting us in September 2020.
  2. The Council’s complaint response says the insurers were awaiting a report on the damage but the Council did not start the report until late September due to an administrative error. When it realised the problem, the Council submitted the report, before it admitted liability for the damage in November.
  3. Mr Y remained unhappy, as while the Council had removed the fallen tree, it had not yet removed other vegetation to allow for repairs. In its final response in February 2021, the Council said it would remove the vegetation as soon as possible and apologised for the time taken.

Analysis

  1. The Council has admitted liability for the damage caused to Mr Y’s wall and the costs of the repairs. The Council’s insurers are now dealing with the insurance claim. While this may be taking longer than Mr Y would like, claims for damages, such as costs for repairs, are more appropriately dealt with by the insurers and if necessary, through the courts. As the claim is already with the Council’s insurers, it is reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his claim through the insurer or the courts, so we will not investigate this complaint.
  2. The Council has admitted it took longer for its report to be submitted to its insurer due to an administrative error. While it may have caused Mr Y some frustration, the Council has recognised the problem, corrected it and apologised. It has also agreed to remove the vegetation before work on the wall is due to start.
  3. Consequently, any injustice Mr Y had, has been short-lived and has been largely remedied in the Council’s complaints process. There is therefore insufficient injustice remaining to justify our involvement so we will not investigate.
  4. As we are unable to investigate the substantive issue, we will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the Council’s insurers or the courts are better placed than us to consider the matter.

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