Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune a tree. 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 prune a tree which he thinks may fall on his house. Mr X wants the Council to prune the tree and pay £1000 compensation for his stress.

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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the Council’s tree policy and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Tree policy

5. The Council will prune an overhanging tree if it is dangerous or causing damage. A neighbour can cut back overhanging branches to the boundary.
6. The Council does not prune or fell trees for problems linked to leaf fall or the fall of nuts, berries or fruit.

What happened

7. Mr X lives next to a cemetery. His home is separated from the cemetery by a path. There is a large oak tree in the cemetery adjacent to Mr X’s property. Some of the branches overhang his house and garden. Mr X is worried the tree will fall on his house. He says acorns fall into the garden and have made his dog ill. He also says acorns have fallen on his head and caused concussion.
8. Mr X asked the Council to prune the tree. There have been two inspections involving two tree officers. One of the inspectors was an independent tree consultant. The Council inspected the tree from outside Mr X’s home and from inside the cemetery. The outcome of the inspections was that the tree is in a good condition, with no health and safety concerns and the risk of it falling is low. The officers noted the tree is routinely inspected every three years and will be inspected again in 2022.
9. The Council told Mr X it would not do any work because the tree is not causing damage and is not dangerous. It also explained it does not do tree work to alleviate problems caused by acorns. It referred Mr X to the tree policy. The Council told Mr X he could cut the tree back to the boundary. It also explained it will continue with its routine monitoring of the tree.
10. Mr X remains of the view the tree is dangerous and the Council should cut it back. He says he consulted a tree surgeon who works in the cemetery who said the tree needs to be pruned to make it safe. Mr X denies there was a second inspection. He wants the Council to prune the tree within 30 days and pay £1000 in compensation.
11. The Council says it has not been contacted by Mr X’s tree surgeon. It says it would expect a qualified tree surgeon to contact the Council if they had concerns about a tree which was under Council control.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Two tree officers inspected the tree and found it is in a good condition and poses a low risk. It is not fault for the Council to follow the professional opinion of qualified tree officers and to decide, in line with the tree policy, not to do any work to the tree. This applies even if another tree officer holds a different view. In addition, the second inspection was carried out from inside the cemetery, behind a fence, so Mr X would not have been aware of it taking place. It was also not necessary for the officers to enter Mr X’s garden, as he wanted, because they could see the tree from the outside the house.
13. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but we do not act as an appeal body. We cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. There is no reason to start an investigation and no grounds on which to ask the Council to pay Mr X £1000.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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