Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council failing to properly investigate her concerns about its trees causing damage to her mother’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and there is another body better placed to consider whether the Council is liable for any damages.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns in relation to council-owned trees causing damage to her mother’s property. She said the matter has caused them distress and frustration. She wants the Council to conduct a thorough investigation of the trees and damage.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X said nearby council-owned trees are damaging her mother’s property. She said the overhanging branches are damaging the roof of the property and there is ground disruption caused by the roots growing/spreading.
7. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said it regularly inspects the trees within its area. In response to Ms X’s concerns, it carried out an additional inspection of the trees and surrounding area. The Council said its inspection concluded:
• the overhanging branches were away from the property and so it did not consider them to be impacting the property. It noted there was moss present on the roof of the property however, there was no evidence this had been caused by the trees Ms X complained of; and
• there was noticeable ground disruption however, the Council noted there was evidence of previously removed trees within the property which may have caused the disruption. It therefore could not conclude whether the damage was caused by council-owned trees. The Council advised Ms X to contact her mother’s insurers for an investigation and repairs. It said if there was new evidence which showed the damage to the ground was caused by council-owned trees, it would reconsider the matter.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Council is required to carry out work on a tree. It is for the Council’s officers to decide this. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision but this does not mean the Council is at fault. The Council inspected the site in response to Ms X’s concerns and explained its reasons why it will not carry out any work. This was appropriate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. We cannot criticise the decision if there was no fault with how it was made.
9. In addition, we cannot establish whether the council-owned trees are responsible for any damage. Only the courts and insurers can decide such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and there is another body better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman