Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a tree and not replace it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to remove the tree, and any personal claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Removed a tree without giving the required notice, which meant he could not comment before it was felled.
• Did not replace the tree after previously saying it would.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress and unnecessary loss of time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. People may complain to us about injustice caused by:
• ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or
• the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• . (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

5. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council did not display a notice before felling a street tree outside his property, so he did not have the opportunity to comment. He also says the Council offered to plant a replacement tree but later withdrew the offer.
9. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. I recognise the circumstances of Mr X’s complaint have frustrated him, but this is not significant enough to justify further investigation.
11. In any case, the Council says it inspected the tree and completed a risk assessment which showed it was dangerous to road users and pedestrians. It says that, because of the risk identified, it could remove the tree without the 28-day consultation period. It accepts its contractor failed to attach the notice to the tree but says this did not affect the outcome.
12. The evidence shows the Council has inspected the tree, carried out a risk assessment and explained why it felled it. On balance, I am satisfied the failure to attach the notice did not affect the decision to fell the tree. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to remove the tree to warrant further investigation.
13. Mr X also complains the Council has not replanted the trees as promised. I acknowledge Mr X is frustrated, but there is insufficient claimed personal injustice to warrant further investigation.
14. We will not investigate the way the Council handled the complaint and correspondence here because we are satisfied it did not cause enough separate injustice to warrant it.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to remove the tree, and any personal claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman