Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication in relation to a council-owned tree which she said damaged her property. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council poorly communicated with her in relation to a council-owned tree which she said damaged her property. Ms X said the matter caused her frustration and avoidable time and trouble. She wants the Council to apologise to her and provide her with a financial remedy for the injustice caused. Ms X also wants the Council to implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In late 2025, Ms X said she noticed damage to her property. Ms X said a structural engineer identified a council-owned tree had caused the damage to her property. Following this, Ms X told the Council. In response, the Council told Ms X it would complete an inspection of the tree and provide her with the results within 10 working days. The Council also gave Ms X a claim form if she wished to claim any damages via the Council’s insurers. Ms X said she completed the form and submitted it to the Council.
6. Ms X later complained to the Council. As part of her complaint, she said she had contacted the Council several times requesting an update on her case. The Council had failed to provide her with the tree assessment report following its inspection, failed to provide her with an update on the insurance claim and failed to provide her with the maintenance records for the tree in question.
7. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and acknowledged it had delayed responding to her complaint. It also accepted its communication with Ms X in relation to updating her on the case had been poor. The Council apologised to Ms X for its poor communication. It provided Ms X with the tree assessment report and other requested information.
8. While Ms X experienced frustration due to the Council’s poor communication, the level of injustice identified is not significant enough to justify a further investigation. In any case, the Council already acknowledged it had acted with fault and apologised to Ms X which was appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman