Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not agreeing to inform his neighbours that its officers had required him to remove some trees from his land. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal at the magistrates’ court against the Council’s decision regarding his trees. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X caused by the Council to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes he wants.

The complaint

1. The Council required Mr X to remove some trees for which he was responsible. Mr X did this but it has been unpopular with some of his neighbours who have sent him abusive or threatening messages. Mr X complains the Council has refused to put up a sign or otherwise inform his neighbours that its officers had required him to remove the trees.
2. Mr X feels the Council has ‘hung them out to dry’ by saying the issues between him and his neighbours are private matters. He wants the Council to place letters on the three lampposts around the land saying the trees were removed on their instruction because of a risk to community safety, send a copy of the same letter to the properties surrounding the piece of land, and pay his tree removal costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s role here was as the enforcement authority regarding Mr X’s trees. Officers determined the trees posed a risk to the safety of the public and were blocking a highway. The Council advised Mr X of this and required the tree work under Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980. The law gave Mr X a right of appeal in the magistrates’ court against the Council’s decision. We mention here, for the sake of clarity, that we will not investigate where someone has a formal right of appeal against a council’s decision which it would have been reasonable for them to have used. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision about his trees, it would have been reasonable for him to have used that appeal right as that is the route provided by law to challenge such a decision.
7. We realise the core of Mr X’s complaint to us is that Council officers have refused to become involved in the disputes he is having with neighbours about the trees’ removal. The disputes are matters between Mr X and the neighbours, arising from his work to the trees, not from any Council function. It was the neighbours’ own decisions to send messages to Mr X. The felling of the trees causing bad feeling from some neighbours is not the result of fault by the Council when discharging its duties regarding the trees. Any injustice to Mr X from abuse and threats is not from any Council action or inaction. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council here to warrant us investigating. Depending on content and frequency, the neighbours’ correspondence may be for Mr X to refer to the police.
8. We understand Mr X wants the Council to place notices in the area and send letters to nearby properties. He also wants the Council to pay him for the cost of the trees’ removal. We cannot order the Council to issue such letters or notices. If Mr X wants to show neighbours the Council required him to remove the trees, he might choose to provide show them documents he got from officers demonstrating this. Mr X’s decision to comply with the Council’s requirement to do work to the trees meant he would then incur the works’ costs. The expense is unrelated to the complaints he has raised about the Council. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal at the magistrates’ court against the Council’s decision regarding his trees; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice to him caused by by the Council to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman