Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's decision not to remove or significantly reduce a tree next to a private estate on which she lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Ms X and fellow residents to put any claims of legal liability for property damage by the Council before its insurer and then the courts, if required. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to remove or significantly cut back a tree next to the private estate where she lives.
2. Ms X says the tree has damaged a boundary wall and a car parking area’s surface, and blocked drains. She says the tree drops large branches and a lot of debris such as seeds and leaves throughout the year. Ms X says the tree’s pollen affects her daughter’s hay fever and the health of other residents. She says residents are unable to open windows in summer as pollen gets everywhere. Ms X says residents are affected financially from having to pay for debris to be cleared from their land and gutters. She wants the Council to cut the tree back to the stumps at its expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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. 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

6. I considered information from Ms X, online maps and images, the Council’s tree management approach 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 Ms X’s reports and complaint about the tree, the Council sent officers to inspect it. They determined the tree required work to remove branches overhanging the highway, and the removal of dead wood, storm-damaged and broken branches. The Council did this work earlier in 2025. Officers advised the Council’s tree management approach meant it would not remove healthy trees because of impacts from natural processes such as them shedding leaves, seeds or pollen. They also advised Ms X of her and her fellow residents’ Common Law right to remove tree branches which were overhanging their land and how to proceed if they wished to use that right.
9. Officers gathered information about the tree’s condition and applied the Council’s policies and approaches when deciding what maintenance work was required. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision on what works to do to the tree and investigating. We recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. In their responses to Ms X, the Council advised her she could refer to its insurers her claims that its tree was causing damage to a boundary wall, car park surface and drains owned by residents. Officers repeated this advice when Ms X reported that Council contractors had damaged the wall when doing their work. Ms X’s reports of damage caused by the tree and the contractors are claims of private property damage for which she considers the Council should be held liable. Only an insurer or the courts can make liability decisions. We cannot decide issues of legal liability for property damage. As the Council has suggested, if Ms X wishes to pursue these issues along with other residents, they may wish to first lodge a claim with the Council’s insurer. If the insurer rejects the claim, it would then be a matter only the courts could decide. It would not be unreasonable for Ms X and her fellow residents to follow that route because the insurers and courts have the appropriate standing and expertise to decide claims of legal liability. Furthermore, should the courts be involved, their decisions are binding on all parties, unlike ours which can only make recommendations to councils.
11. The outcome Ms X wants from her complaint is for us to order the Council to cut back the tree to its stumps. It is for officers to use their professional judgement, in line with their councils’ approach to tree management, to determine what works to do to trees. We cannot issue such orders to councils. That we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• it would not be unreasonable for Ms X and fellow residents to make any claims of legal liability for property damage by the Council to its insurer, and then to the courts if required; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman