Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council acted outside its powers and misinformed her about the timing of a tree risk assessment. There is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to place Mrs X on a managed contact arrangement. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s associated complaints because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a tree dispute. Her key complaints are that the Council:
• acted outside its powers because the tree was on private land;
• misled her about the timing of a tree risk assessment;
• wrongly placed on a managed contact arrangement;
• wrongly handled her complaint for several reasons.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, she was caused distress, her neighbour dispute escalated, her statutory rights were obstructed because of the managed contact arrangements, she was caused significant time and trouble dealing with the Council’s errors and her trust in the Council has been eroded.
3. She wats a finding of fault against the Council, withdrawal of the assessment, service improvements and financial compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Issues over the safety of the tree have been ongoing for over 20 years. However, Mrs X complains about matters which occurred within the 12 months before she came to us. Therefore, these are in time, and I will consider them here.
8. In 2025, the Council carried out a risk assessment and determined there was a 1/300,000 chance of the tree falling and damaging Mrs X’s property. Not long after, a private consultant reached conflicting conclusions around the level of risk and the safety of the tree.
9. Mrs X is unhappy that the Council became involved in the matter because the tree was on private land. She says there was no legal basis for it to do so.
10. We define significant personal injustice as serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough significant injustice caused by the Council’s involvement. The Council’s assessment was overtaken by another one from a consultant. There has been no harm caused to Mrs X or her property by the tree. I acknowledge Mrs X says she was caused distress and time and trouble but this is not enough to warrant an investigation. And we cannot say Mrs X’s claim of an exacerbation in her dispute with her neighbour, is solely as a result of the Council’s involvement.
12. Mrs X is unhappy because she says the Council misled her when it said the risk assessment was carried out a few months earlier than it actually was. Regardless of the precise date there is not enough significant injustice to warrant an investigation.
13. The Council placed Mrs X on managed contact arrangements because of the number of communications with the Council’s Tree Team and other officers. Mrs X was unhappy and unsuccessfully appealed.
14. The Council followed its policy when it applied its managed contact arrangements which relate solely to matters about the tree. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
15. It is not good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue, unless the complainant was caused significant injustice during the process. This is not the case here so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is either not enough evidence of fault or there is not enough significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman