Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, made on behalf of Ms Y, about the Authority’s decision not to do work to a tree outside Ms Y’s property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains, on behalf of her mother Ms Y, that the Authority has not done work to a tree outside Ms Y’s property. Ms X says the tree is blocking light, making the property dark, and Ms Y and her partner have been targeted by criminals, causing anxiety and fear. Ms X also says the tree is dropping sap and leaves on Ms Y’s property. She wants the Authority to cut back the tree’s branches.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Authority, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We cannot go behind an authority’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, there would have been a different outcome.
6. The Authority assessed the tree in response to Ms X’s concerns, and considered the photographs and information she provided. A service adviser summarised the Authority’s policy on tree works. This included that the Authority would not prune a tree due to loss of light to adjacent properties, or to prevent natural leaf fall. The adviser initially said they would ask tree officers to prune the tree. But when officers visited, they determined pruning was not be needed. They noted none of its branches were obstructing or damaging any property, and found no defects in the tree which required work.
7. After another visit and review, officers determined the tree still had no obvious defects, that it was healthy, and the branches gave sufficient clearance for pedestrians and Ms Y’s property. Officers also advised that pruning the tree’s canopy would encourage more growth, causing more sap and leaf fall, so would not improve that part of Ms Y concerns.
8. Officers visited the tree to gather information to reach their professional judgement about the matter, which was the appropriate process here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Authority followed to make its decision about the tree to justify us investigating. I recognise Ms X and Ms Y disagree with the authority’s decision not to do work to the tree. But it is not fault for an authority to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman