Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not removing trees on land between his property and the highway, and not repairing his driveway crossover. The complaint on the Council’s initial 2019 agreement to remove the trees is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when deciding not to now fell the trees to warrant investigation. An investigation of the driveway surfacing matter would not achieve a different outcome. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to make a liability claim for any property damage from the trees to the Council’s insurer, then to court if required.

The complaint

1. Mr X bought a property which has trees in the grass verge between the boundary and the highway. His vehicle access leaves his property then has a crossover which passes the trees to join the road. Mr X complains the Council:
1. initially agreed to his request to remove the trees but did not do so;
2. has recently decided not to remove the trees;
3. has failed to repair damage to the driveway caused by tree roots.
2. Mr X says the trees are a safety risk to his family. He says the driveway has been damaged and has large potholes and his children have tripped and fallen on it. Mr X says the surface is causing damage to his vehicles, costing him money to repair. He says a tree is growing over his property, causing damage. Mr X is concerned the tree is unsafe and may fall, especially in poor weather. He wants the Council to remove the tree and repair the driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s family first asked the Council to remove the trees in 2018, soon after they moved there. The Council initially agreed to do this in January 2019. Mr X later sought help from a Councillor when the work was not done. He raised a complaint with us about two years later. But we normally expect people to go through councils’ complaints processes to give them an opportunity to deal with the issues raised before bringing them to us. Mr X had not taken his complaint to the Council first, so we closed the case in early 2021, as it was premature for us to consider.
8. In any event, we expect people to complain to us, after complaining to the council, within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of. Any complaint made after 12 months is late. Mr X would have known several years ago that the Council had not removed the trees as it had agreed to in 2019. He first made a valid complaint to us in June 2025. His complaint about the Council initially agreeing to but then not doing these tree works is late.
9. We may investigate late complaints if we consider there are good reasons to do so. There are no good reasons here. Mr X’s further contacts with the Council and others on the trees issue show there was no barrier to him making a complaint to officers and then to us about the matter much sooner. Furthermore, the situation has moved on since the Council’s initial 2019 position, as officers have done more recent assessments of the trees and driveway. The Council’s latest actions and decisions in response to Mr X’s concerns and complaint about the trees and driveway are not late issues because they happened in the last 12 months.
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
11. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council inspected the trees. Officers explained to Mr X that the policy on tree management was to retain healthy trees wherever possible. Their inspection determined the trees were strong and healthy. Officers decided a branch required removal and there should be reduction work done to the trees’ canopies, but they did not agree to their felling, in line with their policy.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making here to warrant us investigating. The Council visited and considered appropriate evidence about the condition of the trees to reach the view that they would not be removed. The assessment applied their adopted policies on tree management. Officers concluded the trees required some work under the Council’s normal work timetable. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to remove the trees. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
13. Officers also inspected the driveway crossover and the impact the trees’ roots had had on the surface. They determined there was root damage but that it was not to the point of significant damage. Officers noted removing the roots would make the trees unsafe and unstable. They agreed to investigate ownership of the driveway crossover and, if maintenance is their responsibility, to recommend remedial works. Officers visited and assessed the drive’s surface when reaching the view that the damage was not significant. We recognise Mr X may disagree, but we cannot go behind a council’s properly reached assessment unless there is fault in the process which would have led to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of Council fault regarding the driveway to warrant investigation.
14. Mr X says in his complaint to us that the Council has not yet done the resurfacing work. But it is for councils to determine what priority to give to the highways work on their schedules. Officers are entitled to use their professional judgement to focus their resources on issues which affect the most highway users and pose the highest risks. We recognise the work may not yet have been done. But if the Council has determined maintenance of the driveway is its responsibility, the job will be on its schedule of works and awaiting resources. An investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome for Mr X on this issue.
15. We note Mr X says one tree has damaged an item on his property and that the tree root damage to the driveway surface has led to him paying for repairs to his vehicles. He is also concerned about future damage. These complaints amount to claims that the Council should be held liable for damage to Mr X’s property. We cannot decide liability in property damage claims. Only insurers and the courts can do this. If Mr X considers the trees have damaged his property, this would be a claim he could first raise with the Council’s insurers and, if his claim is not resolved, for him to put before a court. It would be reasonable for him to pursue this route as the courts have the relevant legal expertise and standing to make liability decisions, and their decisions are binding on all parties, unlike ours which may only make recommendations to councils.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• his complaint about the Council’s initial agreement in 2019 to remove the trees is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when deciding not to now remove the trees to warrant an investigation; and
• investigation of the driveway crossover surfacing work would not achieve a different outcome; and
• it would not be unreasonable for him to make a legal liability claim for property damage to the Council’s insurer, then to the courts if required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman