Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not sufficiently pruning some trees near her and her neighbours’ properties, not explaining its tree maintenance decision and not taking account of the residents’ views, needs and concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X and several neighbours live in a block of properties near a group of Council-owned trees. Miss X complains the Council:
1. has failed to prune the trees adequately for two years;
2. failed to properly explain its officers’ decisions on the work which was done to the trees;
3. failed to take account of the residents’ views and needs, and their concerns about the impact of the trees.
2. Miss X says the trees cause significant blockage of sunlight to her and her neighbours’ properties. She says they have to use artificial light during the day which causes inconvenience and costs them money on their fuel bills. Miss X wants the Council to do a thorough pruning of all the trees and give a written apology to her and her neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss X, relevant online Council information and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. In response to Miss X’s contacts about the trees, the Council inspected them. Officers determined the trees required light pruning. They noted Miss X’s and her neighbours’ concerns about the trees blocking light from their properties. Officers considered the trees blocking light did not give them reason to prune the trees back more under the Council’s policy and approach to maintenance of its trees.
8. The officers not agreeing with Miss X’s and others’ views, and not doing the tree work they wanted, does not mean they failed to take those opinions into account in their decision-making process. Officers considered their concerns, gathered the relevant information about the trees, and applied the Council’s approach when making their decision on what tree work to do. Officers also explained the Council’s policy is not to prune or remove trees if they block light to properties. The Council is entitled to properly adopt an approach to tree maintenance it considers will best retain its trees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision‑making process the Council followed here to justify us going behind its officers’ decisions about the tree works and investigating. We recognise Miss X and her neighbours disagree with the Council’s decision and want the trees to be pruned more. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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