Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly made a tree preservation order on trees which he wants felled. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. It is reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Council for works on the trees. If refused, he will have a right of appeal to the planning inspector who has the power to change the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council inappropriately made a tree preservation order in 2021 on two trees. Mr X believes the issue was raised by a neighbour due to a neighbour dispute and the application was not fairly dealt with because the neighbour is senior in the Council. Mr X says the trees are dangerous and unsightly and should be removed.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and discussed the complaint with him by telephone.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
7. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Mr X can apply to the Council to fell or prune the trees. If the Council refuses the application Mr X will have a right of appeal to the planning inspector who has the power to change the Council’s decision.
8. Mr X had a right of appeal to the High Court, on a point of law, against the Council’s decision to confirm the tree preservation order. Matters which could be raised at court are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 3 and 4). I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have used his legal remedy if he wanted to challenge procedural matters or argue that the process was “corrupt”. The neighbour who objected to the removal of the trees was acting as a member of the public and was entitled to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly made a tree preservation order on trees which he wants felled. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. It is reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Council for works on the trees. If refused, he will have a right of appeal to the planning inspector which has the power to change the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman