Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s and its contractor’s decision to plant a tree on part of the highway outside his property, and about fault in the way the contractor dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council or its contractor not consulting or informing Mr X about the planting the of tree to warrant investigation. Even if there was fault, the tree does not cause significant personal injustice to Mr X and his family which justifies investigation. We do not investigate internal complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint, and investigation of this issue would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The Council’s contractor planted a tree in the highway verge, in front of Mr X’s house. Mr X complains:
1. the Council and its trees contractor failed to inform or consult him before planting the tree;
2. the Council and its contractor decided to plant the tree on the request of his neighbour, who works for the contractor;
3. the contractor has not visited him to inspect the obstruction;
4. the contractor has delayed in replying to his correspondence.
2. Mr X says the tree is in the way of the doors when trying to put his disabled child in the car. He says he has been caused stress from trying to resolve the matter. He wants the Council to move the tree to the front of his neighbour’s house or remove it.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, online maps and street images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council or its contractor failed to inform or consult him before planting the tree. The contractor says where a new tree is in the public highway, they do not consult with residents when planting them. There is no duty on a council or a contractor working on its behalf to advise or consult residents on the planting of trees on land controlled by the council. I realise Mr X would have preferred to have been told or consulted so he could object. But there is not enough evidence of fault on this issue to warrant an investigation.
6. Mr X believes the Council’s contractor’s decision to plant the tree in its current location was due to a request from his neighbour who works for the contractor. He also believes the contractor did not visit the location to investigate his complaint about the tree. The Council’s contractor says the tree’s location was chosen by its tree inspector and denies any other influence on their decision. It also says that its staff visited the site to inspect it in spring 2022, while it considered Mr X’s complaint.
7. These allegations remain in dispute, but we will not investigate them. This is because even if there has been fault by the Council or its contractor in the process leading up to the planting of the tree, the outcome does not cause Mr X or his family such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. I recognise Mr X may be put to some inconvenience by having to park his car in a slightly different position, or move it slightly, so the door he wants to use to put his son in the car is clear of the tree. But that is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.
8. Mr X says the contractor delayed in dealing with his complaint and the matter caused him stress. We do not investigate internal complaints processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint. Furthermore, the contractor has apologised for the delay in dealing with the complaint. An apology is the most likely outcome we would have sought were we to have investigated this issue, so there is no different outcome on this matter which investigation would achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council not consulting or informing Mr X about its contractor planting the tree; and
• even if there was other fault in the process here, the outcome has not caused significant personal injustice to Mr X and his family; and
• we do not investigate internal complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint; and
• investigation of the complaint-handling would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman