Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the adequacy of Council’s Tree inspection regime. This is because the injustice claimed is damage to the complainant’s car arising from a tree. It is reasonable for the complainant to take her negligence claim to court.

The complaint

1. In summary, Ms X says the Council has been negligent in not removing a tree. She says the tree caused damage amounting to approx. £1000 when it fell on to her car.
2. Ms X also says the Council’s tree inspection regime should be investigated and she has wider concerns about public safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate because the matter of liability for financial loss is usually decided in the courts.
6. It is reasonable for Ms X to take the matter to court. The court can decide liability and if Ms X is entitled to claim back the costs of repairs for the vehicle. There is a simple procedure in the county court for dealing with small claims. Usually, solicitors are not required so the only costs will be the court fees.
7. The Council’s insurers have turned down Ms X’s claim saying the Council could not have foreseen the storm damage and the inspection regime is adequate. The crux of this complaint is if the Council has been negligent. This can be considered in court including the adequacy of the inspection regime.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not investigate as it is reasonable to expect Ms X to go to court to decide the Council’s liability for damage to her car.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman