Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the safety concerns of trees. Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and he can take part of his complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council’s decision to plant trees created a safety concern. He also complained that the Council did not respond to his freedom of information requests.
2. Mr X said he has been unable to have his concerns resolved by the Council.
3. Mr X wants the Council to remove the trees and not restrict his contact with the Council.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council planted a series of trees in January and February 2024 using tree wardens to carry out the planting. Mr X complained to the Council that the trees caused multiple risks to children. He asked for the trees to be removed.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint, it consulted health and safety officers and a tree expert. In its response to Mr X, it said that the trees met with the Tree Council guidelines and it would not agree his request to remove the trees.
9. 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 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. While I appreciate Mr X's concerns about risks to children, I do not consider the issue complained about caused them a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. The Council said it had used its unreasonable conduct process for Mr X due to behaviours it said Mr X exhibited. The Council followed its process to reach its decision. It informed Mr X of the process and explained his right of appeal to challenge its decision. It also told Mr X it would monitor the decision over time. Mr X was given a single point of contact where he could maintain contact with the Council.
11. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X was restricted from contacting the Council. He was assigned a dedicated point of contact so that he could maintain communication. Mr X’s freedom of information requests could have reasonably been given to his contact at the Council.
12. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. We normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body best placed to consider and decide such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and he can take part of his complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman