Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s removal of trees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council removed two mature trees from her street without enough evidence they were causing drainage or wall damage. She says the decision was inconsistent with the Council's Conservation Area Appraisal and its earlier requirement that the trees be replanted when a neighbouring wall was rebuilt. She also says the Council relied on a third-party report and failed to act transparently or by its own policies when deciding to remove the trees. Ms X wants the Council to recognise its failings, apologise, provide suitable replacement planting, and review its tree management and complaint-handling procedures.

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
• 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))

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. The Council explained it considers each tree location on its individual merits. It said the replacement tree referred to by Ms X was planted because inspections found no structural defects in the surrounding area and no previous negligence claims associated with that location.
7. The Council also explained why it was necessary to remove two trees near Ms X’s property and considered whether it should replace the trees. It said it took advice from its arboriculturist, structural engineer and building control officers. Based on that advice, it decided not to replant the trees because of concerns about health and safety and the risk of future negligence claims. It said it also had to consider the potential impact on public funds.
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. The information available suggests the Council considered relevant professional advice before reaching its decision and explained its reasons to Ms X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating.
9. Ms X complained the Council acted inconsistently with its policies and failed to act transparently. The Council accepted parts of its tree policy lacked clarity about circumstances where trees are removed because of negligence concerns. It said it would update the policy and review it yearly. Further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.
10. Ms X also complained the Council did not handle her complaint properly. We do not normally investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue where we are not investigating the underlying matter. As we are not proposing to investigate the substantive issue of the Council's decision to remove and not replace the trees, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council's complaint handling separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman