Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not pruning a tree near his property, and its tree inspections. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. The matters have caused insufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property next to Council land containing trees. He complains:
1. the Council has failed to listen to and dismissed his concerns about the size of the trees;
2. he has not witnessed the Council checking the trees annually.
2. Mr X says he has spent over £100 on a tool to remove branches overhanging his fence. He is worried the tree may fall and damage his property. Mr X wants the Council to reduce the height of its trees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following a proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council says it reviewed its last tree inspection in April 2025 and did another inspection. Officers did not identify any health or condition issues with the trees which they considered justified them doing any work to them. They noted the tree causing most concern to Mr X is mature and has reached its likely maximum size. Officers advised Mr X that if he wanted to have the tree pruned, he may fund this work to be done by an agreed accredited and insured contractor.
8. We note Mr X has not witnessed the Council inspecting the trees. But his not seeing them is not sufficient evidence for us to find they did not happen. Even if earlier annual inspections did not occur, the Council’s officers visited the trees in response to Mr X’s complaint so saw them in their current condition, to inform their decision. Officers took account of relevant information about the trees’ condition and location to reach their professional judgement not to do works to them. That is a decision they were entitled to reach. Officers did not agree to do and fund the tree works Mr X sought. But the Council’s responses show it noted and replied to Mr X’s concerns and did not dismiss them without consideration.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X may disagree with the decision not to prune the trees. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Mr X says he has spent money on equipment to lop overhanging branches. He is entitled to remove such branches as long as he does not damage the tree and he offers back to the Council the removed material. There is no more duty on the Council as a neighbouring property owner to cut back trees overhanging others’ property than if the tree were owned by any other person or body. Mr X’s lopping equipment cost is not a financial injustice caused by fault by the Council.
11. We understand Mr X is concerned about a tree falling and damaging his property. But that has not happened and we cannot count as injustices events which have not occurred. Mr X’s worry about what might happen is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. In any event, if the Council’s tree were to harm Mr X’s property in future and he believed the Council was responsible, this would be a claim of legal liability for private property damage. We cannot decide legal liability claims so would not investigate. Only an insurer or the courts can make legal liability decisions. If Mr X believes the Council’s trees have damaged his property, he may wish to make his claim to the Council’s insurer first and, if the claim is declined, then to the courts.
12. The outcome Mr X seeks is for the Council to reduce the trees’ height. We cannot order councils to use their resources to do work on specific trees even if they have been the subject of a complaint. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman