Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a tree in Mr X’s neighbour’s garden is covered by a TPO. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says a Council officer deliberately misrepresented the position of a tree in a neighbour’s garden as being covered by a TPO and so an application for works to it is now required. He says the tree in its current form poses a danger to another neighbour’s children and to parked cars.

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 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)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X wants work to be undertaken to cut back a tree in a neighbour’s garden.
7. Following some initial confusion from the Council as to whether an application would be required for such works, a Council officer assessed the tree and decided its location meant it is covered by a TPO and so an application is required.
8. Mr X disputed this view and complained to the Council about the officer who made the decision, alleging the officer deliberately misrepresented the tree’s position so as to bring it within the TPO.
9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and referred to the detailed explanation he had been given for its decision. It confirmed a senior planning manager had reviewed and agreed with the decision and did not uphold the complaint.
10. It is not our role to review the merits of the Council’s decision. It assessed the situation and came to a view that Mr X disagrees with. It is not known whether the owner of the tree wants work to be carried out on it. However, it is open to the owner, and to anyone else, to make an application for the work and to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which considers matters on behalf of the Secretary of State, if the Council refuses the application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman