Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to allow her to pollard one of its trees growing near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property with a Council-owned tree nearby, growing next to a footpath and a road. She complains the Council has unreasonably and unjustly refused her permission to pollard the tree at her own expense.
2. Mrs X says the tree is causing her a nuisance, blocking light, impacting her enjoyment of her home and may affect its value. She is concerned the tree will soon take more light from her property and become at risk of falling in high winds. Mrs X says she has previous experience with a tree affecting her property and does not want this repeated with this tree. She says she is distressed by the Council’s refusal to engage with her request.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to agree to her request to have her own reputable tree surgeon pollard the tree, to be done at her expense if necessary. She also wants the Council to work with her to improve her area’s natural environment.

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. (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 Mrs X, relevant online maps and images of the location, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. 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. In response to Mrs X’s contact about the tree, the Council’s officer inspected it. They found the tree to be healthy with no major defects. The officer determined the tree’s condition did not warrant work to it under the Council’s approach to highway tree management. They recognised Mrs X’s concerns about the tree blocking light but advised this was not a statutory nuisance which would give reason for them to prune a tree. Officers advised that pruning often leads to more growth than that which has been pruned, causing greater shading. The Council did note some vehicle damage to the tree’s lower limbs so scheduled for these to be removed.
9. The Council’s officers also engaged with Mrs X’s request to have the tree pollarded at her own expense, responding to this in complaint replies. Officers explained the Council does not permit work to its trees by other parties, apart from branches overhanging those parties’ properties that they may remove under common law rights. The Council explained that allowing third parties to do work to trees it owns can cause problems in determining liability should there be a future claim against the Council for damage caused by one of its trees. By not allowing others to work on their trees, the Council retains clear responsibility for any problems or legal claims arising from a claim. Officers also explained their approach is to retain as many trees as possible in its area. The Council will only pollard trees where that type of pruning has already been done to them. They consider the growth following pollarding forms a weaker attachment to the remaining tree than normal branch growth and reduces the trees lifespan.
10. Officers considered Mrs X’s concerns, gathered the relevant information, and applied the Council’s approach when making their decision on what work to do to the tree, and deciding it would not allow her to pollard the tree. The Council is entitled to adopt an approach to tree maintenance which it considers will best retain its tree stock. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process the Council followed here to justify us going behind those decisions and investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman