Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the complainant for removing wood from his fallen tree from the highway. We cannot decide whether the Council is liable for the cost. This is a matter for the Council’s insurer or the courts. Also, we will not investigate a complaint that the Council has failed to provide information. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
• The Council failed to respond to his emails.
• Failed to provide information he requested.
• Charged him for doing a job twice.

He wants the Council to explain why the work was done twice and significantly reduce the invoice amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
 

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)

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. A tree on Mr X’s property fell across a main road during a storm. This happened at night. The Council’s contractors placed the cut wood on the footpath.
7. Mr X told the Council the footpath was blocked because of the tree wood.
8. The Council told Mr X that because it was his tree, he must clear the footpath.
9. Mr X hired tree surgeons to move the wood from the footpath at his own cost.
10. The Council sent Mr X an invoice for the work carried out to remove the tree from the road.
11. I understand Mr X believes the contractors should have placed the cut wood back on his property instead of on the footpath when it removed it from the road.
12. However, the Council has a responsibility to clear the highway. Contractors are not responsible for establishing boundaries. As the tree was on Mr X’s property it is his responsibility. The Ombudsman cannot establish liability. It Mr X believes it the Council’s fault that he had to pay to remove the wood from the footpath, he can make a claim on the Council’s insurers. If that fails, he can make a claim in the small claims court.
13. Mr X also complains the Council failed to provide information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deals with information rights. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO if he believes the Council is withholding information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We cannot decide if the Council is liable for the cost of removing the wood from the highway.
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO if he believes the Council is withholding information from him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman