Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Authority’s responses to correspondence about works he could do to his tree. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority in not interpreting Mr X’s emails as a request to remove the tree. Even if the Authority had treated his emails as such a request, there is not enough evidence the Authority would have given permission for its removal. The Authority has apologised for its delayed responses to some emails, and there is no further worthwhile outcome our investigating would achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns land in a conservation area, on which stands a large tree. Mr X was in contact with the Authority about works to the tree. He complains the Authority:
1. delayed in deciding on his request to remove the tree;
2. delayed responding to his emails.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an authority’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)
3. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the authority, 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

4. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X and the Authority;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X sought responses from the Authority in summer 2020 about work he could do to reduce the size of his tree. The Authority gave him permission to reduce its crown by 50 percent. Mr X then asked the Authority to confirm that discussions in 2014 between an Authority officer and the former owner of his property and neighbours had indicated the tree could be removed. He did not want to pay for reduction works if he could then remove the entire tree.
6. The Authority delayed in its response. In early 2021, the Authority confirmed the crown reduction work still had their permission. Officers did not consider Mr X’s summer 2020 enquiries amounted to him making a request to fell the tree. Mr X believes those enquiries made it clear he wanted to fell the tree, and that the Authority not replying to his request within the statutory six‑week period means he now has ‘implied consent’ to fell it.
7. On the wording of the emails I have seen, I do not consider it was fault for the Authority to not interpret Mr X’s emails as a request to fell the tree. Mr X explained he did not want to pay for the crown works ‘if the tree were to be removed in the near future’. He also asked the Authority to confirm what he had been told by neighbours about discussions with an earlier officer many years before where they say removal of the tree had been planned. It was not fault for the Authority to not interpret either statement, or any others in the later emails, as a request for permission to fell the tree. It follows that I currently do not consider the Authority delayed in deciding on a request from Mr X to remove the tree.
8. In any event, even if the Authority had replied to Mr X within six weeks in the way he believes it should in summer 2020, on balance he would not have received permission to fell the tree. I say this because the Authority wishes to retain it as officers consider it is in good health and contributes to the conservation area’s street scene and visual amenity. Mr X says it can only be an opinion as to how the Authority may have acted if it had treated his emails as a request to remove the tree. But the Authority has explained to Mr X that if he were to make a request to remove the tree, officers would take action to prevent its loss, including the use of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). So there is not enough evidence the Authority would have given Mr X permission to fell the tree last year, even if they had treated his emails as a request for that permission.
9. The Authority has also explained that any decision on the removal of the tree made over two years ago by another officer would no longer be valid. Permissions for tree works in conservation areas are valid for two years from the date of notification. Any error by the Authority in maintaining its records on this matter has no bearing on whether Mr X would have permission to remove the tree as any such decision was made over two years ago.
10. The Authority delayed in responding to some of Mr X’s emails. Those delays were fault which caused avoidable inconvenience and annoyance to Mr X in having to chase replies. Were we to investigate the complaint, an apology is the remedy we would have sought from the Authority. The Authority has apologised to Mr X in several responses. I realise Mr X disagrees, but I consider the apologies already given are the appropriate outcome. There would be no further worthwhile outcome from an investigation of this part of the complaint for us to pursue.
11. I note Mr X believes the Authority’s delayed replies mean he has implied consent to remove the tree. The Authority has stated that if he were to act on that view, it could result in him as the tree’s owner, and any contractor he employs to do the work, being open to prosecution. It is for Mr X to decide on what actions he takes. If Mr X wants to test his view that he has consent to fell the tree by removing it, he may wish to first seek his own independent legal advice.
12. Mr X says the Authority promised him further guidance regarding the works he could do to the tree, and has still not supplied it. This is a new matter which Mr X did not raise in his complaint to the Ombudsman, so it has not formed part of the assessment. In any event, it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the core substantive issues. Were this matter to brought to us as a separate complaint, we would be likely to apply that limitation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority in not interpreting Mr X’s 2020 emails as a request to remove the tree; and
• even if the Authority had treated his emails as a request to fell the tree, there is not enough evidence the Authority would have granted Mr X permission for its removal; and
• the Authority has provided the appropriate apology for the impact of its delayed responses to some of Mr X’s emails, and there is no different or additional worthwhile outcome our investigating would achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman