Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s requests for action to address nuisance cause by a tree close to his home. This is because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to his requests for tree works and a subsidy for the cost of garden waste collections.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says a tree close to the property where he lives causes nuisance. He wants the Council to remove the tree or manage it more appropriately by reducing it in size. The correspondence Mr X has provided shows that the Council has carried out work in the past which Mr X regards as ineffective, in that it did not address his key concern that the tree blocks light to the property.
6. In response to Mr X’s request, the Council has said that it has inspected the tree but that no current works are required. Mr X regards this response as unreasonable. He has also asked the Council to subsidise the cost of his garden waste removal, and complains that it has declined to do so.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part. It is for the Council’s officers to decide whether works are required under its tree maintenance policy. The decision not to carry out the work Mr X wants is properly set out and defensible. Without evidence of fault in the way the decision was made, the Ombudsman cannot criticise its merits or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
8. Mr X argues that he has a right to light to his property, which the Council’s refusal to maintain the tree infringes. If he believes his legal rights are being denied, it is for him to ask the courts to enforce them. There is no role for the Ombudsman.
9. Similar considerations apply to Mr X’s request for a subsidy of the cost of his garden waste removal. This is not something to which he has an entitlement, so we cannot criticise the Council for using its discretion to refuse the request,

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman