Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a technical error causing a delay in Mr X’s application for a Tree Preservation Order. There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X by the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a technical error by the Council meant his application for a Tree Preservation Order was delayed. He says the matter is of importance to protect the quality of the environment, and the Council has downplayed the seriousness of the matter. He wants the Council to backdate his application to the correct date, and provide evidence it has resolved the technical error.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 X’s complaint is about a technical error which meant the Council did not pass his Tree Preservation Order application on to an officer as soon as it should have. He also complains about the Council’s complaint-handling.
6. Due to the requirement for us to use public money carefully, we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. The delay in the Council allocating an officer has not caused Mr X any significant injustice.
7. Nor is there an overwhelming argument it would be in the public interest to investigate the matter, as the Council has confirmed the error was an anomaly. No significant consequences have materialised, and the Council has allocated an officer to assess the application. We could not achieve anything of significance by investigating this complaint.
8. 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. We also will therefore not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s complaint-handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X by the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman