Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is avoiding its responsibility to do work to trees outside his mother Mrs X’s property and has delayed doing the works. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process when determining the priority of the works and their timing to warrant an investigation. There is no different outcome an investigation would achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Mrs X’s son. Mr X complains on Mrs X’s behalf that the Council:
1. is trying to avoid its responsibilities for doing work to trees near Mrs X’s property;
2. has delayed in pruning the trees.
2. Mr X says the trees block sun from Mrs X’s home which is bad for her health and means she has to put her lights on. He says low branches are a danger to the public, and to council staff cutting grass underneath. He says leaves from the trees are a slip hazard, and their sap from makes cars sticky and dirty so they have to be cleaned more often. He wants the Council to cut back the trees.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in their decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. So we consider the processes councils follow when making their decisions.
7. Mr X says the Council is trying to avoid its responsibility for maintaining the trees and has delayed doing the tree works. The Council has stated its intention to do the works, in the winter of 2022/2023, when the trees are not growing. It has put the job on its list, so is not avoiding responsibility for the trees. In response to Mrs X’s concerns, then taken up by Mr X, the Council visited and assessed the trees to inform its decisions. Tree officers prioritise jobs based on the level of risk posed by the trees. They determined the risk of any harm from the trees Mr X complained about was low. They placed the trees on the list of works to be done, but prioritised other trees where the assessed risk from them is greater. That is a professional judgement they are entitled to take as tree officers. They also received Mrs X’s and Mr X’s concerns about the impacts of the trees. But the Council’s approach to tree work explains their policy is not to prune or remove trees to reduce or stop such issues as fallen leaves or twigs, minor overhanging branches, bird or insect droppings, or loss of light or shading.
8. Officers gathered relevant information and applied their policy to make their professional judgements about the priority to be given to the tree works. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to criticise their decisions and justify an investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. The outcome Mr X seeks from the complaint is for the Council to prune the trees. The Council has agreed to do work to the trees so there is no different outcome an investigation would achieve. I realise Mr X considers the work should be done sooner. But as explained above, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the priority given to the tree works to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process when determining the priority of the tree works and the timing of that work; and
• investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman