Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not maintaining trees on land near her garage, and how it dealt with her reports and complaint. Mrs X’s core complaint is a dispute between her and the Council about legal liability for damage to her property. It would not be unreasonable for her to make a liability claim to the Council’s insurer, then to court if required. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property with a garage. Land next to the garage includes trees owned by the Council. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. has failed to properly maintain the trees over several years;
2. was rude and dismissive when visiting her property;
3. failed to properly consider her complaint.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s trees have damaged her garage and fence. She says she cannot physically cut back the trees which encroach over her fence. Mrs X says the matter has caused her stress and anxiety, affecting her mental health and is concerned the trees’ roots might damage her house in future. She wants the Council to pay for the property damage and the trees further reduced in size.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s core complaint is that the Council’s trees have caused damage to her garage and fence. She has commissioned a surveyor’s report which she considers supports her claim. The Council does not accept the survey findings and disagrees that its trees have caused the damage. Officers believe other factors including the garage’s construction have led to its condition.
6. This is a dispute about legal liability for claimed property damage. We cannot decide liability in property damage claims. Only insurers and the courts can do this. Mrs X’s allegations of damage would be a claim she could first raise with the Council’s insurers and then, if that process does not resolve her claim to her satisfaction, for her to put before a court. It would be reasonable for her to pursue this route to get the liability finding and outcome she seeks if the Council’s insurers do not agree her claim. This is because the courts have the relevant expertise and standing to make legal liability decisions, and those decisions are binding on all parties, unlike ours which may only make recommendations to councils.
7. Mrs X also complains about an officer’s attitude at a visit, and how the Council responded to her reports and complaint. We do not investigate councils’ contacts and complaint handling in isolation where we are not also investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• it would not be unreasonable for her to make a liability claim for any damage she considers has been caused by the trees to the Council’s insurer, then to court if required; and
• we do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matter which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman