Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on the maintenance of and works required to its trees next to her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives in a house with Council-owned trees bordering her property at the rear. She complains the Council has failed to sufficiently maintain and prune its trees.
2. Ms X says the trees have overgrown her garden and one is 10 metres from her house. She fears trees may fall on her property, or injure her or her family. She says the trees also prevent light getting to her garden’s grass and plants. Ms X wants the Council to return to her property and do more pruning to 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 us investigating. (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 Ms X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process the council has followed to reach its decision.
7. The Council pruned the trees near Ms X’s property in 2022. She contacted the Council because she thought staff may not have done all the pruning, and had not done as much as she wanted them to. In response to Ms X’s concerns, the Council’s officers noted the latest inspection and work done to the trees. The inspection was to determine whether the trees were in good condition, with no signs of disease or defects which could create risk to neighbouring property or to the wider public. Officers concluded the trees’ condition meant there was no need for further maintenance work. The Council has advised Ms X that officers will reinspect the trees in spring of 2023 to make sure no more work is required, and that if she believes the trees’ condition changes, she should report this to them.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council used to make its decision not to do work to the trees to warrant us investigating. Officers gathered appropriate information and followed their tree management approach to reach their professional judgement decision not to do further work to the trees at this time. I realise Miss X disagrees with that decision and believes the trees pose a risk. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. I recognise Ms X says the trees block light to her property. There is no duty on the Council, as the owner of trees neighbouring Ms X’s land, to do works to them solely to reduce this impact. In any event, pruning retained trees further encourages branch and leaf growth, resulting in their cover becoming denser and blocking more light. Additional, harder pruning would be unlikely to improve this issue for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman