Leeds City Council (21 011 504)
Category : Environment and regulation > Trees
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 30 Nov 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to damage to the complainant’s property. This is because it would be reasonable for him to pursue the matter in court.
The complaint
- The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing to remove trees causing damage to his property, and in refusing to accept liability for the damage.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr B says his home has suffered subsistence damage caused by trees owned by the Council. He says the damage results from the Council’s failure to maintain the trees, which it undertook to do after an earlier episode of subsistence.
- Mr B says he has provided evidence that the trees are responsible for the subsidence, and should be removed. He complains that, despite this, the Council has refused to accept liability for the damage to his home and will not remove the trees.
- We will not investigate Mr B's complaint. This is because it relates to liability for damage to property. Where liability is disputed, it is not for the Ombudsman to take a view. Rather, that is a matter for the courts, which can take a definitive view. We cannot.
- If Mr B wants to establish that the Council is liable for the damage to his property, and should take action in response, it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. There is no role for the Ombudsman.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to go to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman