Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a tree matter. This is because the Council has taken appropriate and proportionate action to address the matter. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a tree matter. She says her neighbour cut down trees on her land without her permission, and which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Mrs X reported this to the Council and she is dissatisfied with the actions it took to address the matter. She also complains of delays in the Council’s investigation and inaccuracies in the Council’s expediency report.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A tree with a TPO cannot be cut down, damaged or altered without the council’s permission. Anyone who contravenes a TPO by damaging or carrying out work on a protected tree without permission is guilty of an offence and may be fined. It will be for the Council to decide whether to pursue prosecution or other remedial action.
7. The evidence I have seen shows the Council carried out site visits which confirmed that trees had been felled and pollarded on Mrs X’s land. The Council considered enforcement and remedial action it could take in the circumstances. It determined that enforcement action was not expedient because:
• it had not caused a significant detriment to public amenity; and
• it was not possible to accurately conclude which trees were covered by the TPO due to the location of where the trees were situated.
8. The Council also explained why some other remedial measures were not appropriate. However, to prevent future uncertainty, the Council issued a new TPO for the area with clearer boundaries, as well as a warning letter to those involved in the unauthorised tree works.
9. The Council took appropriate and proportionate steps to investigate and address the matter. It considered relevant evidence and its enforcement and remedial powers available to it, and weighed their use against the circumstances and potential benefit. It explained the reasons for its conclusions and took steps to prevent future occurrences and uncertainty. I am satisfied with the Council’s actions and I do not consider that further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome. It remains open to Mrs X to pursue a civil claim for any personal damage caused by the unauthorised tree works.
10. Mrs X complains of delays in the Council’s investigation of the matter. I acknowledge the Council’s investigation took some time. However, now that it has provided an outcome to Mrs X, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating the matter further now.
11. Mrs X also complains of errors and inconsistencies in the Council’s expediency report. I do not consider the alleged inaccuracies she has identified affected the outcome of the Council’s assessment. Any information the Council provided to Mrs X during the investigation likely formed part of the Council’s initial consideration of the matter and was not necessarily its final position. The fact that it reached different conclusions at the end of investigation does not, by itself, invalidate the Council’s investigation or mean final conclusions were improperly reached. I also do not consider the report disproportionately focused on one address. The address highlighted by the Council appears to have suffered the most visual impact, and this does not indicate the Council failed to consider the wider affected tree area. Any alleged fault has therefore not caused an injustice that would justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council took to investigate the matter and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome by us investigating the Council’s delay and any alleged faults in the report have not caused an injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman