Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s request to have a tree removed. There is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to inspect, maintain or manage a declining tree outside her property.
2. She says the tree obstructs the footway and forces pedestrians onto her driveway throughout the day, often brushing against her vehicle. She says this causes constant noise, disturbance, and anxiety about damage or liability. Mrs X also says the roots caused a blockage in a sewer inspection chamber.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to inspect the tree and footway and produce a plan to restore safe and accessible passage on the footway. She also wants financial recompense for her avoidable time, frustration and inconvenience in dealing with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has responded to Mrs X to say the tree in question requires some minor works to remove dead branches. It has told her it will not remove the tree.
8. We will only investigate complaints where we believe the complainant has experienced significant personal injustice such as serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
9. The injustice Mrs X reports is not significant enough to meet that threshold. Any noise from pedestrians will not be significantly greater when they pass Mrs X’s property because they need to move around the tree. Mrs X reports no actual damage to her car and this would be a matter for her insurance company, not the Ombudsman. The letter from the water company stated there was no history of the roots blocking the inspection chamber previously and this matter has been remedied in any case. Mrs X has provided no evidence to support her view the tree is a hazard to pedestrians. Therefore, we will not investigate her complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman