Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to prune and not remove a tree between the road and his house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the officers’ decision-making process to justify us investigating. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s internal complaint process in isolation, as we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a house with a Council-owned tree between his property and the road. He complains the Council has:
1. decided not to remove the tree in line with his request;
2. delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X says honeydew drops from the tree on to his property, making a mess. He has been caused stress by the situation with the tree, and the Council’s delayed responses. Mr X wants the Council to properly consider the matter, not hide behind its policies, and agree to remove the tree.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, the Council’s published tree policies, online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there has been fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, would have led to a different outcome.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council visited and inspected the tree and decided they should aim to reduce its crown in the 2021 to 2022 winter months. The Council’s officers were entitled to reach their professional judgement, based on the information gathered from their site visit about the tree’s location, health and condition. There are no grounds here for us to go behind their professional judgement decision on the work required for the tree.
8. The Council’s general tree policy states it ‘will not normally prune or fell trees solely to alleviate problems caused by seasonal issues e.g. falling leaves, sap, blossoms, fruit, nuts, bird and insect droppings’. Officers have decided to prune the crown of the tree, to alleviate the problems Mr X reported. So the Council has provided an outcome over and above one they would usually give under their general tree policy.
9. I note Mr X says his situation with the tree is ‘severe’, that each case should be dealt with on its own merits, and so wants the tree removed. The Council’s policy for felling a tree in a highway location sets a stiff test, requiring a ‘justifiable arboricultural or legal reason on the grounds of safety’. There is not enough evidence here that officers erred in not identifying such a tree safety reason, or in their application of the Council’s highways tree policy, when deciding to prune rather than remove it.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify us investigating. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s delays in dealing with his complaint. But we do not investigate councils’ complaint processes and responses in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. We do not consider it a good use of public resources to do so. That limitation applies here so will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because;
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council when reaching its decision on the tree work required to warrant us investigating;
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint processes in isolation, where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman