Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a consultation letter sent to local residents concerning the proposed removal of a tree. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any useful outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about a letter sent by the Council to local residents regarding the proposed removal of a tree which had been thought to have damaged his property. He says the letter did not provide information to allow residents to make an informed judgement and that it came over three years since the Council’s insurers had become involved in the case. He wants the Council to explain why it issued the letter and to apologise.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law 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. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2017, the Council received an insurance claim from Mr X concerning damage to his property caused by a nearby tree. An environmental consultancy service recommended the removal of the tree.
6. Matters were delayed while the state of Mr X’s foundations were investigated and this led to a re-examination of the case by the Council on the advice of its insurers. A decision was taken to consult with residents in 2020 about the proposed removal of the tree, many of whom were concerned to stop it being felled.
7. The Council sent out consultation letters and subsequently made the decision to retain the tree.
8. Unhappy with the Council’s letter, which Mr X says led to negative comments on social media directed at him as the property owner affected by the tree, he complained to the Council about it. It considered his complaint but did not uphold it. It explained who had originally recommended the removal of the tree, why the Council had carried out the consultation and said that it had not directly identified his property.
9. Dissatisfied with its response, Mr X complained to us, seeking an explanation of why the letter had been issued and an apology.

Assessment

10. This matter has had the involvement of the Council’s and Mr X’s insurance companies. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 of this statement applies to insurance issues which fall outside our jurisdiction. This is because Mr X has the right to take the Council to court if its insurers come to a decision with which he disagrees, and we would reasonably expect him to make use of this alternative remedy.
11. Mr X says he wants the Council to justify its reasons for issuing the letter. While I note Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response, it has already addressed this issue.
12. Mr X wants the Council to apologise but we will generally not investigate a complaint to achieve this outcome alone.
13. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council did not undertake due diligence before issuing the letter and refers to the professional judgement of civil engineers and designers in relation to stabilisation works which assumed the retention of the tree. He also says the letter misled residents, caused them confusion and wasted taxpayers money. However, it is Mr X’s complaint and his injustice I have considered and there are insufficient grounds to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any useful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman