Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it removed a tree near Mr X’s home, for removing him from a Council office after he behaved unacceptably, or for restricting his contact due to his unacceptable behaviour.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council felled a tree outside his house without notice. He said it was nesting season and felling the tree killed the birds nesting in it. He complained that when he went to the Council office to complain, he was surrounded by staff and held against his will. Mr X also complained the Council unfairly restricted his contact.
2. Mr X said this was distressing and upsetting. He said because of his restricted contact, he cannot report housing issues to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Part of Mr X’s complaint is that because of his restricted contact, he cannot report housing issues to the Council.
8. As I have said above, we cannot investigate complaints about a council’s management of social housing when it is acting as a registered social housing provider.
9. In this case, the Council is Mr X’s social housing provider. For this reason, we cannot investigate his complaint that the Council restricted his contact with it as his social housing provider.
10. Mr X already has an existing complaint with the Housing Ombudsman to do with the Council’s management of his social housing. The Housing Ombudsman is the appropriate ombudsman service to raise this part of his complaint with.
11. I have investigated how the Council restricted Mr X’s contact when it was not acting as a social housing provider. These issues are separable and therefore do not require a joint investigation with the Housing Ombudsman.
12. I have investigated the rest of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the Council’s policy, set out below.
14. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

15. The Council has a policy about how it will restrict or manage contact from customers when it believes the customer’s behaviour is unacceptable.
16. The policy says the Council will write to the customer to tell them why it believes their behaviour is unacceptable, what action it will take to manage their contact, and how long the restriction will be in place for. It will give the customer the right to appeal, and it will review the restriction.

What happened

17. Mr X is a social housing tenant. There was a tree very close to his home. The Council sent contractors to remove the tree. Mr X was unhappy about this and intervened. He went to the Council office to complain.
18. When at the Council office, Mr X gained access to a restricted area. Officers and security staff intervened, and took Mr X to a meeting room. Police escorted Mr X from the building.
19. Mr X complained.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X. It said Mr X’s behaviour to contractors removing the tree was rude and abusive. The Council said when Mr X went to the Council office, he breached several security measures at the office which was serious, and he demanded to speak to a named officer. It said Mr X refused to leave and was threatening, so the Council called the police.
21. The Council said Mr X caused significant disruption and left staff feeling vulnerable and unsafe. It said Mr X also sent threatening and aggressive text messages and voicemails to an officer.
22. The Council said this was unacceptable so it restricted Mr X’s contact. The Council banned Mr X from attending Council offices and banned him from phone contact with the Council. It gave him one email address he could contact which the Council would monitor and decide if a response was necessary.
23. The Council then replied to Mr X’s complaint. It said it removed the tree because it was too close to the building and posed a risk of structural damage if it was left in place. The Council said the contractor checked for nesting birds in the tree and determined there were none. The Council said it had investigated Mr X’s attendance at the office. It said Mr X’s conduct was violent and intimidating.

Analysis

Tree felling

24. Mr X complained the Council felled a tree outside his house without notice. He said it was nesting season and felling the tree killed the birds nesting in it.
25. The Council had the right to remove a tree on Council-owned land. The Council was not obliged to inform Mr X it was going to remove the tree. I am satisfied the contractor checked the tree for nesting birds and saw no birds, chicks, or eggs.
26. I find no fault with the Council for removing the tree or the way it removed the tree.
27. Mr X provided photos of a dead bird. These photos are not dated and do not show anything other than a dead bird. I find these photos are not evidence of fault with the Council.

What happened in the Council office

28. Mr X complained that when he went to the Council office to complain, he was surrounded by staff and held against his will.
29. Mr X said he went to the Council office to complain. He said he was then surrounded by six officers, taken to a meeting room, was told to wait, and was not allowed to leave.
30. The Council presented a very different version of events from Mr X. The Council said Mr X entered an area of the Council office that is not open to the public. It said he did this by tail-gating an officer through security measures into a secure part of the building. The Council said Mr X did not have permission to be in that area, so it took steps to remove him.
31. The Council also said while Mr X was there, he used abusive and intimidating language and behaviour, shouting and swearing at officers. The Council said Mr X would not leave the building so officers persuaded him to wait in a meeting room while it called police to escort him out.
32. I am persuaded by officers’ accounts of the events. I find the Council had every right to take steps to remove Mr X from the building. I find no fault with the Council’s actions.
33. Mr X’s allegation that he was held against his will is not something I can make a finding on. This is because it is a criminal offence and therefore a matter for police, not the Ombudsman.

Contact restriction

34. Mr X complained the Council unfairly restricted his contact.
35. The Council had every right to use its policy to restrict Mr X’s contact. I find the Council acted in line with its policy. Because I find no fault with the way the Council made its decision to restrict Mr X’s contact, and how it went about restricting his contact, I cannot question the outcome of that decision.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman