Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled his concerns about a tree near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council did not properly address his concerns about a tree near his property. He also complains about poor communication and its handling of his complaint. He says this put him and his property at risk of harm until the Council approved the tree’s removal. He wants the Council to acknowledge it did not meet its statutory obligations and pay him compensation.

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:

• 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))

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 the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also reviewed tree work applications for the relevant tree, which are publicly available on the Council’s online planning portal.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The subject of Mr Y’s complaint is a tree on private property protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
7. Where someone wants to carry out works to a protected tree, they must apply formally to the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Legislative guidance says it is important applications are properly supported by appropriate information and technical evidence. It also outlines when the LPA should consider visiting the tree site.
8. The tree’s owner applied to the Council for permission to remove the tree. Mr Y contacted the Council to confirm his support for this application.
9. The Council refused the application and issued a decision notice outlining its reasons.
10. Mr Y contacted the Council to raise concerns about its decision. After three weeks, the Council provided a substantive response to Mr Y. It explained it refused the application because it had limited supporting information. It also said it had decided to visit the tree site.
11. Mr Y continued to raise concerns but the Council did not respond, so Mr Y raised a formal complaint about its decision to refuse the application. He also said it had not met its statutory obligations to visit the tree site sooner.
12. In its complaint response, the Council reiterated why it refused the application. It explained it relies on applicants to describe tree conditions, and it is not responsible for assessing trees on private properties. It said it can intervene if there are safety concerns, but had visited this tree site twice and had not considered intervention was needed.
13. The Council said it had since received and approved a second application to remove the tree which included detailed technical information about the tree’s condition.
14. We will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint. The Council appropriately considered Mr Y’s concerns and applications it received related to the tree. In line with legislative guidance, it also considered whether to visit the site. Its decision to refuse the first application to remove the tree was within its discretion and it gave its reasons in the decision notice and to Mr Y. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this matter to justify investigation.
15. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not properly handled Mr Y’s correspondence and had delayed responding to his complaint. It apologised and said it would identify and ensure service improvements.
16. We will not investigate this remaining part of Mr Y’s complaint. The Council’s response appropriately addressed his complaint about poor communication and complaints handling. It is unlikely our involvement could add to this response.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman