Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a complaint about tree works. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council provided delayed and inaccurate information in response to her complaint about the removal of a tree. She said the delayed response to her complaint caused her frustration and she spent time chasing the Council for a response. She wanted the Council to review their procedures and to be fined for providing late complaint responses.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained the Council provided her with inaccurate information when she asked it about the felling of a tree. She also complained that members of the public were allowed to take parts of the felled tree away.
6. In its complaint response, the Council apologised to Miss X, it explained the information provided to her was accurate at the time. The Council confirmed a risk assessment of the tree had indicated it posed a potential danger to the public, therefore it had been removed. The Council told Miss X when the tree was to be replaced. The Council said that if tree contractors could not remove tree cuttings at the time of the tree works a return visit would be scheduled to ensure cuttings were removed. The Council said it could not account for residents removing the cuttings before the contractor was able to return to the site.
7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council explained to Miss X the information it had first provided to her was accurate at the time and told her when the tree would be replaced. It also confirmed what arrangements were in place for the removal of tree cuttings.
8. Miss X complained the Council did not respond to her complaint within the timelines of its corporate complaints policy. The Council apologised to Miss X for its delayed complaint responses. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.
9. 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. While I appreciate Miss X’s concerns about the Council’s delay in responding to her complaint, I do not consider this caused her a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman