Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of the health and safety of residents when determining what works and maintenance it should do to trees near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation. Even if there were such fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property next to a road lined with large trees. He complains the Council has failed to consider the health and safety of residents when determining what works and maintenance it does to the trees.
2. Mr X is concerned that an extreme weather event, such as that experienced in 1987, will put residents at risk from the trees. He says he lives in fear of the trees falling on his property, causing injury or worse to his family, and destroying his house.
3. Mr X wants the Council to change its tree maintenance processes to consider the health and safety of residents and the impacts of extreme weather events. He also wants the Council to reduce the trees’ heights next to his property, work he has offered to fund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, online maps and images of the area, the Council’s ‘Tree Risk Management’ policy document, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
8. The Council’s ‘Tree Risk Management’ policy says its ‘approach to risk management is a balancing act between safety and conservation’ of trees. The Council’s process is to survey and record trees with defects requiring their removal or further monitoring. Officers survey on the basis of foreseeable risks of harm or damage related to any tree, not on the assumption of extreme weather conditions. Works to trees are prioritised based on their location, species, the amount of people in or passing through the area, and the impacts of a partial or full tree fall.
9. In response to Mr X’s concerns, officers reviewed their records for the trees near his property. The Council determined no works to the trees were required. Officers noted the trees are on a five-year inspection rota with the next inspection due in November 2023. Officers stated that if their inspection found any defects requiring action, they would be addressed.
10. The Council’s officers applied their policy and considered Mr X’s concerns about residents’ safety when making their decision here. It was a professional judgement officers were entitled to make that no work was required to the trees on risk grounds. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant investigation. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there were fault in the Council's process here which would have altered its decision regarding work to the trees, we will not investigate. The matters Mr X complains of do not cause him such a significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. We recognise Mr X is worried about part or all of a nearby tree falling on his property, but that has not happened. An event which has not occurred cannot be found to be a significant personal injustice to him. Mr X’s concern that such an event might happen is not in itself a sufficiently significant injustice to him which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there were such fault in the Council's process which would have altered its decision, the matters complained of do not cause him sufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman