Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to carry out works to protected trees. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice because the Council failed to publish his comments in response to the application on its website.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application to carry out works to protected trees. Mr X says the applicant only sought permission to cut back branches overhanging their land and branches overhanging his property have been ignored.
2. Mr X believes the trees could be dangerous and says action should be taken to ensure they are safe.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is unhappy the application did not include the branches that overhang his property. He also says the objections he raised in response to the proposed works were not published on the Council’s website and his concerns were not considered before permission was granted. The Council has accepted it did not publish Mr X’s comments and has apologised for this error. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused significant injustice in this regard. The case officer’s report does refer to the objection received from Mr X and summarises the relevant concerns he raised. The acceptability of the proposed works is also considered in the report.
6. I understand Mr X says the application did not include the branches that overhang his property. But the Council can only consider the details and acceptability of the works applied for.
7. Mr X believes the branches overhanging his property could be dangerous. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives councils discretionary powers to deal with trees on private land that present an imminent danger to persons or property. Councils can serve a notice to the landowner in certain circumstances to remove the tree or carry out works to make it safe. It can also do the work itself if the owner cannot be identified.
8. However, it is the landowners that are responsible for the trees, and it would normally be for the landowner to apply to carry out any necessary works. Therefore, I consider it good practice for the Council to advise Mr X to contact the landowner in the first instance.
9. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Mr X has not been caused significant injustice by the Council’s failure to publish his objections to the application on its website.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman