Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of himself and two neighbours that the Council failed to appropriately manage trees near their homes. Mr X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. We do not find the Council at fault for its tree management. We find the Council at fault for its complaint handling, and this caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained on behalf of himself and two neighbours that the Council failed to appropriately manage trees near their homes. Mr X also complained that the Council completed its complaint procedure without his input.
2. Mr X said he and the other two residents have concerns about potential fire and storm damage risk, poor lighting, potential damage caused by trees, and an impact on house insurance renewals.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. The evidence shows Mr X has had knowledge of this issue for more than two years. However, he only brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2023.
10. As I have said above, we cannot investigate complaints when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. I find there are no good reasons why Mr X did not bring his complaint to us earlier. For this reason, I will not exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to look back any further than 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to us.
11. Therefore, I have considered the Council’s actions from November 2022 onwards. I have added some information in the ‘What happened’ section below from before November 2022. This is for context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. Mr X’s two neighbours have given written consent for Mr X to represent this complaint. I therefore consider Mr X is a suitable person to represent this complaint on the neighbours’ behalf.
13. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
14. I considered the relevant policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Tree management

15. The Council manages trees in parks, woodland, cemeteries, and open spaces. The Council’s website says residents can tell the Council about a problem tree in one of those spaces unless the tree is blocking light. It says it does not deal with this problem.
16. The Council manages its trees under its tree management principles (set out in a document). This document says the Council prunes trees for a number of reasons, including:
• removing damaged or poorly formed branches;
• taking weight out of the tree to reduce the likelihood of structural problems, and ensuring the tree’s good health and appearance;
• ensuring suitable clearance over a road; and,
• reducing the length of branches growing too close to buildings.
17. The Council says its arboricultural officers inspect trees on a regular and appropriate cycle, depending on the level of public use. The officers then determine whether any work is necessary on a case-by-case basis.
18. The Council says it does not typically prune or remove a Council-owned tree to improve natural light to a property.

Complaints procedure

19. The Council’s complaints procedure defines a complaint as “dissatisfaction with the Council’s performance” and is different from a routine request for a service.
20. The complaints procedure says people may complain or take an issue to a local councillor, and that councillor will then advocate on that person’s behalf by writing to the Council. The procedure says a complaint like this falls outside the Council’s complaints procedure and should instead be treated as an enquiry.
21. The procedure says if an enquiry becomes a complaint, then the Council can choose which stage of its complaints procedure it will deal with that complaint. The procedure says the Council would not recommend starting at stage one because the complaint has already been considered when responding to the councillor.
22. The procedure says at stage two, the Council must acknowledge the request for stage two within three working days.

What happened

23. Mr X and his two neighbours live near a cemetery. The boundaries of their gardens back onto a wooded part of the cemetery.
24. In summer 2022, the Council met with Mr X and the two neighbours to discuss a lack of light caused by trees near the boundaries with their gardens. Mr X told the Council their concerns about the impact and potential impact of these trees.
25. Later that year, the Council told Mr X that its arboricultural officers had inspected the trees and had not raised any concerns. It said it had no plans to reduce or remove any trees. The Council said its policy was not to remove trees unless they have died, are unsafe, or have an infectious disease. It signposted Mr X how to complain. It told Mr X he can trim any overhanging branches.
26. In 2023, Mr X and at least one of the neighbours met with the Council and their local councillor. The Council advised that Mr X may wish to complain. On the same day, Mr X emailed the councillor raising his concerns again. The councillor passed this on to the Council.
27. The Council responded to the councillor. It said it was managing the trees in question under its tree management principles. It said it had inspected the trees and found the trees did not warrant any immediate action. The Council said it does not normally prune or fell trees based on the tree’s size. It said Mr X can prune overhanging branches.
28. The councillor forwarded this response to Mr X and signposted him to the Council’s complaints procedure.
29. Mr X responded to the councillor. He was dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
30. A few weeks later, the Council sent Mr X a stage two complaint response. It addressed all the points Mr X made in his response to the councillor, and repeated what it had previously told Mr X and the councillor.
31. Mr X contacted the Council saying he had not complained to it, and asked who had complained in his name. The Council said it was for it to decided what is and what is not a complaint.
32. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Tree management

33. Mr X complained on behalf of himself and two other residents that the Council failed to appropriately manage trees near their homes. Mr X said the Council has an obligation to fell or prune trees in the area affected because its tree management principles say the Council carries out regular inspections and maintenance. Mr X said it was therefore the Council’s policy to carry out good tree management and said the Council had not done this.
34. The Council said it did an informal site visit in 2022. It said its arboricultural team concluded there was no need for any action because the trees only slightly overhung the boundary fence-line.
35. I have considered the Council’s tree management principles and its decision not to take any action to fell or prune the trees that are slightly overhanging Mr X's and his neighbours’ boundary fence-lines.
36. Our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
37. There is no evidence that the trees in question have damaged or poorly formed branches, or are in ill health, dead, or diseased. The Council’s tree management principles say it does not typically prune or remove a Council-owned tree to improve natural light to a property, which is what Mr X and his neighbours want.
38. In making its decision, I find the Council took account of its tree management principles. I find the Council followed these principles when making this decision and therefore I cannot criticise it. I find the Council was entitled to decide not to take any action to prune or fell these trees.
39. I do not agree with Mr X that the Council has an obligation to fell or prune trees in the area affected. Mr X said the Council has failed to carry out good tree management. Mr X’s opinion is not evidence of fault.
40. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaints handling

41. Mr X complained that the Council completed its complaint procedure without his input. He said it was a shock to receive a complaint response from the Council when he did not think he had complained. Mr X said the Council did not tell him it was investigating a complaint on his behalf, and this was not in line with the Council’s complaints procedure.
42. The Council said the councillor had forwarded on Mr X’s email with his concerns following the meeting in summer 2022. As Mr X’s email expressed dissatisfaction, the Council said it treated this as a complaint made by the councillor on Mr X’s behalf. It said it therefore treated this as an enquiry, in line with its complaints procedure.
43. The Council said Mr X then replied to the Council’s response to his councillor with further queries. The Council decided this was a request for a stage two complaint response.
44. I find no fault in the way the Council decided to handle Mr X’s complaint. The Council was entitled to treat Mr X’s email to his councillor, which was then forwarded to the Council, as a complaint. This is because Mr X was expressing dissatisfaction with the Council’s performance. This is in line with the complaints procedure.
45. The Council was entitled to treat Mr X’s email as an enquiry (rather than a stage one complaint) because the councillor had raised it with the Council on Mr X’s behalf. I find this decision was in line with its complaints procedure.
46. The Council was entitled to decide to treat Mr X’s reply (to the Council’s response to the councillor’s enquiry) as a request for stage two. This is because it is in line with the Council’s procedure.
47. However, at this stage the Council should have informed Mr X by way of an acknowledgment that it had accepted his email as a request for stage two. It should have done this within three working days of Mr X’s email. It failed to do this. This is fault. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice in that it caused uncertainty.
48. The Council accepts that it failed to do this and accepts this is fault. It has offered to apologise to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. The Council recognises that its fault in complaint handing caused Mr X injustice. It has offered to apologise to Mr X for this. I find this is a suitable and proportionate remedy for the level of injustice caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
50. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for the uncertainty caused by the fault in handling his complaint.
51. Our published guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of trees. This is because there is no fault.
54. I uphold Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaint. This is because I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman