Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in felling a tree without authorisation and charging the complainant for the work. This is because there is no indication of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council was at fault in carrying out unauthorised work to fell a tree on his property, in charging him for the work and in failing to remove the tree once it had been felled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mr B says that, during a storm, a branch fell from a tree on his property. He says the branch damaged a fence but did not land on the highway. Mr B was absent from the property and a neighbour reported the matter to the Council. A Council contractor attended and felled the tree. The Council did not remove the felled tree but subsequently charged Mr B for the work the contractor did.
6. In response to Mr B’s complaint about its actions, the Council says that when its contractor attended the site the fallen branch was on the highway. It says the contractor took the view that the tree was dangerous and that he therefore acted correctly in felling it. This is work for which it is entitled to make a charge, and it is not responsible for removing the felled tree.
7. Mr B believes the Council’s actions amount to fault. He says the evidence does not demonstrate the tree was dangerous, or that the fallen branch needed to be removed. He argues that it is unreasonable to charge him for work he had no opportunity to approve. He is also critical of how the Council has responded to his representations.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part. In the circumstances the Council describes, it had the duty to remove the tree and the power to charge the landowner for the work. Mr B asserts that the circumstances were not as described. This is not something the Ombudsman can determine. We can take no view on whether the tree should have been felled. That was a matter for the Council. As we cannot determine this substantive matter, we cannot find the Council’s actions to amount to fault.
9. It is for Mr B to decide whether to pay the charge. If he does not do so, it will be for the Council to decide whether to take recovery action. In those circumstances, the issue would ultimately be for the courts to determine.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. As the substantive matter here does not fall to us to consider, we will not investigate how the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no indication of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman