Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain a tree close to his property. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s failure to properly maintain a tree close to his property and its decision not to accept liability for damage to vehicles, which he says is caused by falling debris from the tree.

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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law also 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 have considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s response. I have invited Mr C to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C complained to the Council about a tree located on Council land, close to his property. Mr C said the tree overhangs onto his driveway and debris had fallen from the tree causing damage to two vehicles parked on his driveway.
6. Mr C asked the Council to cut back the tree, to accept liability for the damage to the vehicles and to pay him compensation for this damage.
7. The Council arranged for a Forestry Officer to carry out an inspection of the tree. The Officer concluded that there was no defect to the tree, but that the Council should carry out some maintenance to the branches.
8. Mr C wanted the tree to be cut back so branches did not overhang his property. But the Council said it would only cut back branches to a maximum of 2 metres, to protect the health and stability of the tree. The Council said it would carry out the work before the end of March 2021.
9. The Council invited Mr C to make an insurance claim, but subsequently rejected his claim of liability for the damage to the vehicles on his driveway. The Council told Mr C that he would need to pursue this matter through the courts.

Back to top

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation into Mr C’s complaint.
11. It is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council dealt with Mr C’s request to cut back the tree. A Forestry Officer examined the tree and concluded that it should be cut back to a maximum of two meters to protect its health. Mr C may disagree, but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.
12. I will also not start an investigation because the matter of liability to damage to Mr C’s vehicles is a matter for insurers and the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint, because it is unlikely that we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman