Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not removing or doing further works to its tree which is near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives near land owned by the Council. There is a large tree on that land next to its border with her property. Miss X complains the Council has failed to do works to the tree to solve issues she still has with it after an earlier pruning.
2. Miss X says the tree shades the garden and sheds debris throughout the year, dropping a mess in the garden which spreads indoors. She says she cannot open doors and windows in hot weather or hang out washing, and has to regularly clean up the debris.
3. Miss X wants the Council to remove the tree, or reduce its height and keep on top of its maintenance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. In response to Miss X’s concerns, the Council inspected the tree. Officers found the tree had remained healthy since their last inspection and earlier works to remove branches overhanging her property. They explained the Council’s policy on tree management was to retain healthy trees wherever possible. Officers noted the tree’s branches were not overhanging when they visited. In line with its policy, the Council did not agree to remove the tree but officers advised Miss X to contact them if the branches encroached again. The Council’s officers also recognised the tree’s natural processes and impacts such as dropping debris, shading and shedding leaves may be considered as a nuisance by those living near them. But its adopted policy was to not fell or prune its trees solely to reduce these issues.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. The Council visited and considered relevant evidence about the condition of the tree and its impacts to reach the view that it would not remove it. Officers applied the Council’s adopted policies on tree management. They concluded the tree may require some work if the branches nearest Miss X’s property overhung it in future. We recognise Miss 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. Miss X wants the Council to remove the tree or reduce its height. We cannot order councils to fell or do works to trees. That we cannot achieve these outcomes is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman