Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving the removal of a protected tree at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision‑making process has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve the removal of a tree in a neighbouring garden which was the subject of a tree protection order. He says he is concerned and worried about the impact on the natural habitat.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can 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)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
5. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, which included his complaint correspondence with the Council.
• information about the applications to remove the tree, as available on the Council’s planning webpage.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, as he thinks the reasons given provide insufficient justification for the removal of a healthy tree.
8. But the Ombudsman is 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.
9. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has caused Mr X a significant injustice, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement and expertise to decide whether the tree could be removed, and they have explained the reasons for their decision to Mr X.
• planning decisions and judgements can often seem inconsistent, and while councils aim for consistency through application of local and national policy, a divergence of opinion and approach is inevitable where different decisions and judgements are made by different people at different times. Where opinions differ, we are not able to say which are right or wrong.
• although Mr X might be concerned about the natural habitat in his area, I am not persuaded the removal of the tree causes him a significant personal injustice. In particular, I note the case officer has explained the original tree was of little wildlife value, and would be replaced by a species which improves the biodiversity of the site.
10. As we are not investigating Mr X’s substantive complaint about the Council’s decision on the tree-removal application, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any concerns he may have about the delay in the Council’s complaint process, although I note the Council has already apologised for this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman