Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not cutting back its tree in front of his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property with a Council-owned tree next to the road to the front. He complains the Council is not properly maintaining the tree.
2. Mr X says the tree’s branches are overhanging his property. He says tree sap, debris and mess from nesting birds falls on to his cars, the driveway and people and that the matter is causing him stress and anxiety. Mr X wants the Council to trim the tree back so it does not overhang his property.

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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X, relevant online maps, 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 was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s report about the tree, the Council sent an officer to inspect it. The officer determined the tree complied with the Council’s standards and did not require any work. They identified it was not diseased, damaged or dying, nor causing an obstruction, damage to property or posing a significant safety risk. The Council noted Mr X’s concerns about the tree shedding sap, leaves or other debris and harbouring birds but considered they did not give them reason to remove the trees under the Council’s policy and approach to tree maintenance. Officers advised Mr X that he may prune any overhanging branches back to the boundary of his property, as long as this work does not make the tree unsafe or unbalanced.
8. Officers gathered relevant information about the tree and applied the Council’s adopted approach when deciding not to do work to it at this time. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision and investigating. 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.
9. The outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for us to order the Council to prune the tree. We cannot issue such an order to the Council, to do works to a tree outside officers’ properly conducted assessment of where they should use their tree maintenance resources. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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 us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman