Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a protected tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and insufficient evidence of personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to remove a protected tree. She says the Council failed to provide evidence that the tree posed a major risk and needed removing.
2. Mrs X also says the Council delayed removing the tree despite saying it was dangerous and failed to carry out a proper ecological assessment of wildlife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council said its decision to fell the tree was based on the advice of professional arboriculturists. It said that the tree had Laetiporous and other defects. The tree’s position on the junction of two main roads meant the risk to residents’ safety was too high.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether removal of the tree was required. That is a matter for the professional judgement of the Council’s officers. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to remove the tree. But that does not mean it amounts to fault. The Council explained its reasons for felling the tree and took relevant expert advice before making its decision. There is no indication of fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision.
9. Mrs X also says the Council failed to properly carry out an ecological assessment before removing the tree. The evidence shows the council considered ecological issues before the tree was felled. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
10. Mrs X also says the Council delayed removing the tree after deciding it posed a risk. I am not persuaded the delay caused her a significant enough personal injustice to warrant further investigation.
11. As we are not investigating Mrs X’s substantive complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the protected tree, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any concerns she may have about the delay in the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and insufficient evidence of personal injustice which would warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman