Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure that protected trees owned by him and other residents were not harmed by work carried out by the management company for his leasehold property. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council giving permission for the management company of his home to carry out works to protected trees at the site. He says the trees were pruned too rigorously and this has affected their health. He wants the Council to serve an enforcement notice and to ensure that any dead or dying trees are replaced.

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:

• 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

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X contacted the Council when contractors for the management company of his leasehold property carried out pruning works to protected trees in the development where he lives. He says the trees were drastically cut back and their health has suffered seriously. The trees are owned by the residents and he expected the Council to protect them.
5. The Council telephoned the management company who had applied for consent to work on the trees and reminded it of its requirement that works should comply with BS:3998. The following day it attended the site and considered that the works did not meet the BS standards.
6. Mr X says the Council should not have given consent to the company without notifying the residents. The management company submitted the notice, and the Council is only required to determine this notice. There is no requirement to notify neighbours or other parties. The management company was responsible for notifying the residents who are the joint owners of the trees subject to the works.
7. The Council is considering what further action it may take over the works. Council’s have powers to fine parties who damage protected trees without obtaining consent from the local authority. In this case consent was obtained and the question is to what extent the works exceeded the consent. This is a matter for the local authority to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman