London Borough of Sutton (22 002 926)

Category : Environment and regulation > Trees

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 06 Jun 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to cut back a dangerous tree. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains the Council has refused to reduce the height of a tall tree opposite his home. Mr B says the tree is a safety risk and could fall on his property during high winds.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr B.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. In response to Mr B’s complaint, a Council tree officer visited Mr B and assessed the condition of the tree. The tree officer considered the tree to be in good condition with no obvious defects. The tree officer said the Council tries to preserve large trees where possible and pruning was not justified. The Council told Mr B it will continue to monitor the tree as part of its biannual health and condition survey of all Council trees.
  2. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. An appropriate Council officer has assessed the condition of the tree in response to Mr B’s concerns. I have not seen any information to suggest this assessment was affected by fault. This means we cannot question the professional judgement of the officer that pruning was not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings