Summary: Mr D complains the Council has not cut back trees overhanging his home. The Council accepts it is at fault and will carry out a new survey of the trees. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to cut back trees which overhang onto his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In August 2020 Mr D reported trees on Council owned land were overhanging onto his property. On 19 August an Arboreal Officer visited the site and examined the trees. He completed a survey form but failed to make any notes other than there were zero defects. The Council notified Mr D about its findings and that no works were needed. Mr D contested the decision and, along with a Councillor, continued to correspond with the Council. In November an Officer told Mr D she would send a detailed response shortly. In 2021 Mr D sought to chase-up the Officer and received no response. He lodged a formal complaint in November. In January 2022 he asked the Council when he could escalate his case as he had still not received a reply. The Council issued a response in February and an Officer met Mr D. It said the branches Mr D wanted cut back or removed were integral to the trees structure and no works were recommended.

What should have happened

7. When the Council receives a report about potentially dangerous trees an Officer will visit the site and complete a risk assessment. If the tree has no defects the site is put on the tree inspection programme list for regular inspections (ranging between 18 to 36 months).

Was there fault by the Council

8. The Council has told me it is “now aware” of issues “around the consistency” of the Arboreal Officer’s work (the Officer is no longer at the Council). Because of this it is offering to carry out a new survey of the trees in line with procedures and use a contractor to get a further opinion on whether works are needed.
9. The Council also accepts there were delays communicating with Mr D and replying to his complaint. This was in part due to the key Officer leaving the Council. Clearly those delays are not acceptable and meant Mr D had to wait longer than is reasonable.

Did the fault cause an injustice

10. The fault above means that Mr D had to wait longer than usual for a reply to his queries and complaint. In addition, he is left uncertain whether the trees were correctly assessed.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. The Council’s proposed remedy to this case is acceptable. It is in line with what the Ombudsman would request, namely a review of the trees to ensure it has been completed in line with procedures. The Ombudsman cannot say whether works are needed: that is for the Council to assesses and determine. In addition, the Council has apologised for the delay.
12. The Council has also confirmed to the Ombudsman what steps it has taken to ensure similar delays in complaint handling do not reoccur.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman