Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to trim a tree near a property she owns, and how it communicated with her and dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to justify an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ communications and complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X owns a property in the Council’s area. She complains the Council:
1. has refused to cut back a tree it owns which overhangs her property
2. failed to properly communicate with her and deal with her complaint.
2. Mrs X says the tree blocks light from the property, affecting her ‘right to light’. She says the lack of natural light in the house is depressing and has affected her mental health. She says she has to use lights in the kitchen and bedroom all year round, incurring lighting costs. Mrs X says the tree sheds sap and debris meaning she cannot sit in the garden or hang washing, and she has to constantly sweep up the debris. She is worried the tree will damage the house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. In response to Mrs X’s concerns, the Council reviewed the tree’s inspection record up to spring 2024. The inspection had noted the overhanging branches but had determined they were not causing damage to the house. Officers noted Mrs X’s points about loss of light and nuisances from tree sap and debris. They explained neither the assessed condition of the tree nor these inconveniences did not give them grounds under their policy to do works to the tree.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making here to warrant us investigating. The Council considered appropriate evidence about the condition of the tree to reach the view that no works were required at this time. The assessment applied their adopted policies on tree management. Officers concluded the tree did not require works but it would continue to be managed under the Council’s inspection procedures. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there had been Council fault here which led to the decision not to trim the trees, we would not investigate. Mrs X mentions various inconveniences and impacts caused by the tree’s shadowing and overhanging branches, as set out in paragraph two above. But Mrs X does not live at the property affected by the tree. We recognise Mrs X will experience the issues she mentions when she decides to visit the property. But she is not as affected by them as she would be if they were impacts on her at her own residence. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X here to justify us investigating.
10. We realise Mrs X is concerned about what future damage the tree branches may cause to her property. But there has been no such damage to date. We cannot consider speculative injustices from events which have not happened. In any event, we cannot decide liability in property damage claims; only insurers and the courts can do this. If the tree damages Mrs X’s property, this would be a claim she could raise with the Council’s insurers and, if her claim is not settled, for her to put before a court.
11. Mrs X says the Council delayed in its communications and responses to her complaint. We do not investigate councils’ communications and complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the tree works to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to her to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman