Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not accepting liability in relation to a tree which fell onto her property. This is because there is another body better placed and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to accept liability in relation to a Council-owned tree which fell onto her property and caused damage. She also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint and her request of data related to the maintenance of trees within her area. Mrs X said she has had to pay a lot of money to repair her property. She wants the Council to reimburse her with the costs.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X said a Council-owned tree fell onto her property and caused significant damage to her property. She submitted a claim to the Council to seek payment to repair her property. The Council considered her claim and rejected it based on:
• there was no evidence the damage caused to Mrs X’s property occurred as a direct result of the Council being negligent. Mrs X had not raised previous concerns about the tree and so the Council said it could not have forecasted the tree to fall; and
• the Council had inspected the tree after it had fallen. It said there was no evidence of the tree being weak from any poor conditions. The tree would have looked healthy before it had fallen.
6. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Council. As part of her complaint, she said the company who had removed the tree on behalf of the Council said there was a large crack at the base of the tree which caused it to fall onto her property. Mrs X asked the Council for data it held in relation to trees within her area.
7. In her complaint to us, Mrs X said since her complaint to the Council, the Council sent her acknowledgement of her request for data. She has not received the requested data or any other response.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because we would not be able to determine whether the Council was responsible for any damage to Mrs X’s property. Such matters can only be determined by insurers or the courts. I note the Council has rejected Mrs X’s claim and so it would be reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to the courts. We would therefore not be able to recommend the Council to pay towards any damages.
9. As we are not investigating Mrs X’s substantive matter, we will not look into how the Council managed her complaint as it would not be a good use of public money to do so.
10. I note Mrs X made a request for the Council to share with her specific data about trees within her area which the Council has not yet responded to. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to take this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO investigates delays with such requests.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider such matters and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman