Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to replace a tree outside the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and the complainant is not caused a significant injustice by the tree being retained.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council is continuing to refuse to replace a tree on the grass verge outside his home. He says the existing tree is a blot on the area, and is pulling down its view and value.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 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.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and the Council’s ‘Tree Partnership Strategy’.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X would like the tree replaced. But the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision to retain it, unless there is evidence of fault in the way that decision was made. The Council’s arboriculturists inspected the tree in March and September 2022, and concluded that although it was in a poor condition it did not pose a risk to the public. A highways officer also inspected the area in August 2022, but no actionable defects were found. The Council has confirmed the tree will be inspected on an annual basis.
7. The Council’s decision is in accordance with its tree strategy, which sets out the limited circumstances in which the Council will replace a tree. As such, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation.
8. Furthermore, whilst I understand Mr X is concerned about the tree’s aesthetic value, I do not see that its retention causes him an injustice which warrants our continued involvement in the case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman