Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council agreed to prune a tree and then decided it would not be pruned. Mr X says the tree causes a nuisance by dropping leaves, sap and bird mess on his drive and cars. Mr X wants the Council to cut back the tree.

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 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and tree policy. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s tree policy says it only does tree work if a qualified tree officer decides the tree is diseased, dying, dangerous or causing an obstruction or presents a danger. The policy says the Council will not do tree work for reasons linked to leaves, sap or bird droppings. Many councils have similar policies which specify officers will not do tree work for reasons linked to leaf fall and sap.
5. There is a tree outside Mr X’s home. Mr X says the branches spread out over his drive and his cars are covered in leaves, sap and bird mess. He has suggested the tree could fall on his house during a storm because the tree has not been maintained. Mr X has to spend time cleaning his car and sweeping the drive.
6. The Council initially told Mr X it had secured extra funding and would prune the tree by the end of last October. This did not happen. The Council then told Mr X it had feathered the tree and it did not plan to do any further work. Mr X denies this work took place.
7. A tree officer inspected the tree in December. They found the tree to be in a good condition with no sign of decay. They also found the height and spread are normal for that type of tree.
8. The Council apologised for wrongly telling Mr X the tree would be pruned. It explained it was correct that extra funding had been secured but the tree does not qualify for work.
9. The Council’s tree policy says it does not do tree work for reasons associated with leaf and sap fall. It also says it will only do work if a tree officer finds the tree is diseased or presents a danger. The Council’s decision not to prune the tree reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We could not ask the Council to prune the tree as that would be contrary to the policy and we do not act as an appeal body.
10. Mr X says the policy is wrong and we should challenge it. We may question a policy which is discriminatory or appears to breach the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act. But, we do not question a policy just because someone disagrees with it. Many councils have policies excluding tree work for reasons linked to leaf fall and there may be other people who support the policy; it is relevant that excessive or unnecessary pruning can harm trees. If Mr X thinks the policy should be changed this is something he would need to raise with the Council, perhaps through his local councillors.
11. The Council wrongly told Mr X the tree would be pruned and may have wrongly reported the tree had been feathered. This, however, did not cause an injustice requiring an investigation because, despite the mis-advice, the tree has subsequently been inspected and does not qualify for tree work.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman