Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a council-owned tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and there is another body better placed to consider her concerns.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her concerns in relation to a tree overhanging her property and causing damage. She also complained the Council poorly managed her complaint. The matter caused her frustration. She wants the Council to acknowledge it acted with fault and make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault. Ms X also wants the Council to prune the tree and consider liability for the damage it has caused to her property.

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. A council-owned tree overhangs Ms X’s property. Ms X said debris falling from the tree has damaged her vehicle. Ms X told the Council she was worried about further damage and the risk of debris falling on people.
7. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said:
• its specialist officers inspected the tree which concluded it did not require any work to address Ms X’s concerns;
• the tree shedding debris was a natural process for it to do so as part of its cycle. The Council did not prune trees to reduce debris. It said it was the responsibility of the property owner to clear such debris;
• Ms X could prune the tree under the common law. It advised Ms X to check whether the tree was protected under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). It also advised her to hire a qualified tree worker to ensure any works they did were done with care as if the tree was damaged in any way, Ms X would be liable; and
• Ms X could claim via her own insurers for any damages to her vehicle. She also had the option to claim via the Council’s insurers however, it may take longer.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to carry out works to the tree. The Council’s specialist officers inspected the tree and reached a professional judgement. We are unlikely to question that judgement in the absence of evidence that the decision-making process was flawed.
9. Furthermore, the Council advised Ms X that she could arrange for the works to be carried out herself which was appropriate.
10. It also advised Ms X to claim via insurers for any damage caused to her vehicle which was appropriate too. We are not the appropriate body to determine whether the Council was responsible for the damage to Ms X’s vehicle, as issues of legal liability are better decided by insurers or the courts.
11. As we are not investigating Ms X’s complaint, we will not look into how the Council managed her complaint. This is because it would not be a good use of public money to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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 to consider her concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman