Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove trees near to Mrs X’s property as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to remove trees near to her home. Mrs X says the trees have caused damage to her property and also cause her anxiety as she fears she could be injured by them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 investigating or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Various officers of the Council inspected the trees and concluded that no aboricultural work to the trees was needed and that there appeared to be no structural damage to Mrs X’s property. A highway inspector concluded the trees were causing no actionable damage to the adjacent footway.
9. The Council confirmed that its tree policy does make provision for further consideration to be given where it can be shown the presence of a tree is detrimental to someone’s health. The Council acknowledged the impact Mrs X said the trees were having on her mental health but in weighing this up and the quality and importance of the trees and their benefit to the wider community, its decision was that no action was required at that time.
10. The Council referred Mrs X to its tree policy and how this had been considered and that it was open to Mrs X to obtain her own independent advice about taking further action.
11. In light of the above, I do not consider we should investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. In the absence of this, we cannot question its decision not to carry out work to the trees.
12. Notwithstanding this, had there been evidence of fault, we could not have achieved the outcome Mrs X seeks, ie to instruct the Council to remove the trees.
13. If Mrs X considers the trees are causing damage to her property then it is incumbent on her to seek her own independent advice about this. Mrs X has the right to seek a remedy in court if she considers the trees are causing damage to her property and ultimately only the courts could decide if the Council is legally liable.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman