Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal and replacement of a highway tree next to Mrs X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to re-imburse her for the cost of removing a tree which fell on the pavement following a storm. She also says the Council has decided to plant a replacement tree on the opposite side of the road from the original site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says a tree planted in the verge near her home fell onto the pavement during a storm. She was unable to make contact with the Council the following day so she arranged for a contractor to remove the tree form the footway as it was blocking her drive. She paid £175 for the removal. She subsequently asked the Council to repay her for her costs.
6. The Council’s contractor said that it will not re-imburse her for removing the Council’s property from public highway land. The tree was not on her own land and was not an immediate traffic hazard.
7. Mrs X also asked the Council to replace the tree. The Council decided that a replacement tree would be planted in the verge on the opposite side of the road because the original site was of insufficient quality to support another tree.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
9. There was no requirement for Mrs X to remove the tree which had not fallen on her land. If it had fallen on her land, she could have made a claim against the Council and awaited insurance assessors.
10. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers to determine what should be placed within the public highway and where it should be best located. It has explained why the tree location was changed to a more suitable one and this is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the removal and replacement of a highway tree next to Mrs X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman