Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not removing trees on its land near her 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 she wants from the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property next to Council-owned land, close to trees. She complains the Council has unfairly decided not to remove the trees at its expense.
2. Mrs X is concerned the trees:
• cause loss of light, affecting eyesight and general wellbeing;
• drop leaves and seeds which have to be cleared up;
• drop branches on her property and a nearby path, which is a danger to the path’s users;
• have dropped branches which damaged her car;
• sway alarmingly in strong wind and would be a risk to people and property if they fell;
• have damaged nearby paths due to their roots, a further hazard to walkers, and may cause damage to properties.
3. Her Council complaint indicates Mrs X wants the Council to remove the trees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))

5. 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

6. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. In response to Mrs X’s concerns about the trees, the Council reviewed its most recent inspections. Officers noted the overall health of the trees was satisfactory and that no work was required. They recognised Mrs X’s concerns including leaves and other debris, and the impact on light. Officers explained that the issues she raised did not give them grounds under the Council’s adopted approach to do any work to the trees. They were required to limit their tree maintenance where it was assessed as essential works. Officers advised Mrs X that the Council had done work to the nearby footpath to remove any potential trip hazards caused by roots.
9. Officers gathered relevant information about the tree, applied the Council’s adopted approach when deciding not to do work to it at this time, and made repairs to the path. 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 Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision regarding the tree. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Mrs X does not say in her correspondence with us what outcome she seeks from her complaint. But her contact with the Council indicates her preferred outcome would be for the Council to remove the trees. We cannot order the Council to do work to or fell trees. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. We note Mrs X says debris from the tree caused damage to her car and she is also concerned about other future property damage. These would be claims of damage being caused by the Council’s actions or inactions regarding the trees. We cannot determine claims of liability for such damage. Only insurers or the courts can make those legal liability decisions. If Mrs X wishes to pursue these matters, she may wish to do so first by making a claim with the Council’s insurer. If dissatisfied with the outcome of her claim, it would then be a matter for the court, not the Ombudsman.

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 to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman