Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application to undertake works on trees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly handled his application to complete work to trees on his client’s property. Mr X says the Council wrongly stated he failed to reply to its request for further information which he believes has damaged his professional reputation and could result in him losing work. Mr X wants the Council to correct its records.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and published on the Council’s online planning portal, as well as the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X made an application to undertake works to trees at his client’s property which the Council had six weeks to process. The Council contacted him on the day the application was due to expire and asked for further information. Mr X immediately replied to ask the Council for clarification of what it needed but did not receive a further reply. The Council then granted Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) preventing the proposed works from taking place.
5. Mr X says the Council subsequently notified his client he had failed to reply to its request for further information. He believes the Council has also made this information available to the public. Mr X believes this has the potential to cause damage to his professional reputation and financial loss.
6. 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 a 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. 
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence he has suffered significant personal injustice. It does not appear the Council has published the letter Mr X complains about. We are therefore unlikely to find evidence the Council’s action in this case has caused the alleged damage to Mr X’s professional reputation or his chances of obtaining future work.
8. Since making his complaint to us, Mr X has successfully exercised his client’s right to object to the proposed TPOs. The Council has since granted permission for Mr X to complete the works he originally proposed to his client’s trees.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman