Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not cutting back its tree behind the complainant’s property. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his mother, Mrs Y. She lives in a property with a Council-owned tree in a car park to the rear. Mr X complains the Council-owned tree overhangs Mrs Y’s garden and is dangerous. He says the family cannot use the end of their garden due to the danger from falling branches.
2. Mr X wants the Council to remove the low overhanging branches and confirm when it will fell the tree.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered 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 says it inspected the tree. It says the tree has early signs of ash dieback disease but is not in a serious state of decline. It confirms it has ordered a large crown reduction. This will be carried out when it has available resources.
8. The Council’s policy on highway trees states the Council will carry out work to its trees if they are posing an unacceptable risk to people or property. Or, if the Council wants to improve a landscape or road in line with specific site management.
9. In this case the Council has inspected the tree. It is satisfied it does not pose an unacceptable risk. It has scheduled work to reduce the tree but cannot give a date when this will be done. The Council’s published policy states it has a long backlog of work so cannot give timescales for when it will carry out non-urgent work.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify an investigation.
11. Mr X wants the Council to prune the tree and confirm when it will remove it. We cannot require the Council to do this. The Council inspected the tree and applied its published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it decided not to cut back the branches which overhang Mrs Y’s garden. Nor can we require it to confirm when it will fell the tree.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman