Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to cut down trees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with an application to cut down protected trees in a neighbouring property. Mr X says the Council failed to consult him, failed to inform him before the trees were removed and that the decision to allow the removal was flawed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2018, Mr X’s neighbour applied to fell several trees on their land. Mr X complains that he was not consulted, not informed prior to the work and that the application was not properly considered.
6. I will not investigate this complaint because there I have seen no fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. Mr X says he did not receive a consultation letter. However, the Council records show Mr X was consulted and there is evidence that letters were sent because the Parish Council objected. The reason Mr X did not receive the letter may have been cause the Royal Mail did not deliver it. However, there is no requirements for notification letters to be sent by registered post.
7. I have also seen no fault in how the Council considered the application. The trees were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) as they were in an area covered by a woodland order. The case officer’s report shows this fact was considered, along with objections raised by the Parish Council. However, they concluded that the trees were not considered to have a high amenity value, as they were in a garden and only partially visible from the highway. The case officer was entitled to use its professional judgement when reaching its decision. Mr X may disagree with the decision, but this does not mean it has done anything wrong. With the absence of any evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision made.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman