Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking appropriate action in relation to a tree damaging his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action in relation to a Council-owned tree outside his property which he said has damaged his driveway. Mr X wants the Council to properly investigate the matter and to either cut back the tree or completely remove it.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 said the roots of the tree outside his property are damaging his paved driveway.
7. In 2024, the Council inspected the tree and Mr X’s property. It said it observed the damage on Mr X’s driveway however, was not able to establish whether it had been caused by the roots of the tree Mr X complains of. The Council also inspected the public footway surrounding the tree and had no concerns. It concluded as it had no safety concerns, it did not carry out any further work.
8. The Council later told Mr X that as he remained unhappy with the tree, he had the option to exercise his right under the common law to cut back the tree, cut back the roots or install a root barrier. It explained to Mr X he had to ensure the tree was not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and there were limitations on how much Mr X could cut back. The Council also explained to Mr X it could investigate the matter further and carry out the minimal works if Mr X paid a fee to the Council as the Council deemed the work to be non-essential. The Council said if Mr X believed the tree had damaged his property, he was able to claim with the Council’s insurers.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council inspected the tree and established there were no concerns with the conditions or safety and it explained to Mr X his options of resolving the matter. The Council can charge a fee for carrying out work on the tree as it regarded the tree was not a safety concern and so the work was non-essential. This was appropriate and so there is insufficient evidence of fault to investigate it further.
10. Furthermore, it is for the Council’s specialist officers to use their judgement on how to best manage a tree. This is what the Council has already done. We cannot invalidate its decision and so cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman