Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consult her directly before planting trees behind the rear of her property. We find the Council was at fault for not consulting Mrs X. However, this fault did not result in a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to plant trees behind the rear of her property without consulting with her.
2. Mrs X is worried the trees will reduce light into her property and overhang into her garden. She also says the planting has caused a pavement slab to lift, creating a trip hazard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mrs X says her neighbour is also affected by the planting. We can only consider the injustice to Mrs X, as she brought the complaint to us. I have not considered the impact on her neighbour. The neighbour may submit their own complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In early 2025, the Council planted three trees in large planters behind the rear of Mrs X’s property. The Council says it planted these trees to replace earlier trees, which it removed because it considered them unsuitable.
10. In April, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the trees were too close to her property. She said the Council should have consulted her before planting the trees, as the planting affected her property.
11. The Council accepted it did not consult with Mrs X directly before planting the trees and apologised. It said it had spoken to other residents, ward councillors, and highways colleagues. It also said it used planters to reduce the risk of damage to nearby walls.
12. In May, Mrs X escalated her complaint. She said the trees have grown above her wall, and may in future overhang into her garden, and reduce light to her property. She also said one planter had caused a pavement slab to lift, creating a trip hazard. Mrs X asked the Council to remove one of the trees and replace the other two trees with smaller plants. She also repeated her view that the Council should have consulted her before planting the trees.
13. The Council apologised again, reiterating that it had previously discussed the design with residents on the street, ward councillors and highways colleagues. It acknowledged that since the original design Mrs X had added a rear gate to her property.
14. The Council said it would consider moving the planters if it blocked access to Mrs X’s rear gate. It said if access is not obstructed, the planters would remain in place. Mrs X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
15. In September, the Council invited Mrs X to a meeting to discuss her views on the tree installation. Mrs X attended this meeting and shared her concerns. She says the Council told her it would contact her directly after the meeting with an outcome.
16. In October, the Council wrote to residents of the area explaining the reasons for planting the new trees. The letter confirmed it had carried out a joint inspection of the area and stated that:
• no trip hazards or damage were identified with the paving slabs. The slabs were within legally acceptable levels.
• additional planting has been observed, which was currently viewed as improving the appearance of the area, but could be removed if issues arose.
• the Council would continue to monitor the growth of the trees.

Analysis

17. The Council’s tree policy says it will act where trees cause unreasonable trip hazards. The Council provided evidence of a routine inspection, and a highways inspection after the works, neither of which identified any safety concerns. The Council also evidenced it has a planned further inspection in 2026.
18. The Council accepted it did not consult with Mrs X directly before planting the replacement trees. This was fault. Mrs X’s property is directly next to the planting location. The Council should have considered the impact on her property and consulted her before carrying out the works.
19. The Council has apologised to Mrs X, thoroughly explained the reasons for the works and listened to her concerns. It has completed an inspection which confirmed access is not obstructed. I find the Council’s actions appropriate and proportionate.
20. Mrs X is concerned about how the trees may affect her property in future. She confirmed there is no impact currently. As the concern relates to possible future impact, I find that this has caused Mrs X no significant injustice at this time.

Back to top

Decision

21. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman