Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune trees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s tree is overhanging his property, which he says has resulted in tree sap falling onto his property and his car. He also says the Council did not complete works to reinstate a footway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says a tree overhanging his property causes a nuisance. He has asked the Council to prune the tree, but the Council refused.
7. The Council surveyed the tree in 2024 and found it to be in good health. They considered Mr X’s concerns under the Council’s adopted tree policy, which says:
• the Council will not normally carry out tree works for property overhang.
• the Council does not prune trees to reduce or remove sap outside of its cyclical pruning and maintenance programme
8. The Council concluded there were no grounds to prune the tree.
9. 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 followed to make its decision. The Council’s process in deciding not to prune the tree involved assessing the situation and applying its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to warrant an investigation. We realise Mr X disagrees with the decision, but this itself is not evidence of fault.
10. Mr X also says the Council did not complete works to reinstate a footway. Following his complaint, the Council carried out a further inspection and asked the maintenance team to complete the work. While there was some delay, any injustice to Mr X was limited and is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman