Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to carry out tree management in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s proposals to remove mature trees in a park in his area and to carry out works to others in the nesting season. He believes that the decisions were poorly reasoned and that the Council did not seek professional advice when it made its initial decisions which have since been modified.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council proposed to remove trees in a park in his area. He says the trees involved did not warrant removal and when he questioned the Council’s professional advice on the matter he was told it was not available. The Council subsequently provided a report from professional arboriculturists and it decided that some trees would be thinned rather than removed.
6. Mr X says the Council has provided contradictory responses and that it spent £8,900 on the professional report. The Council says that it initially obtained blanket permission to remove the trees but once a professional report had been commissioned, largely following lobbying from residents it decided to carry out maintenance work rather than removing all the listed trees. It told Mr X that trees which present a risk to the public or impede the growth of other trees will still require removal.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council is responsible for maintaining trees in public areas and it must decide whether to remove or reduce existing trees and if they pose any risk the public. Most councils use their own professional officers but they may also decide to use the service so outside contractors. Mr X says he was concerned about the Council’s initial decision but he also complained about the cost of employing professionals to provide a detailed report. The Council responded to residents’ concerns and this was not fault.
8. 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 the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to carry out tree management in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman