Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the felling of trees. There is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly act on the felling of trees in a conservation area. He says this has caused a loss of privacy, and the area’s beauty has been destroyed.

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 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), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X says the business opposite him felled two large trees in a conservation area without the Council’s permission. He says this caused a loss of privacy. While
   Mr X feels a sense of injustice due to the loss of trees, that is not a matter for the Ombudsman because the Council is not responsible for felling them.
7. Mr X complains the Council has not properly enforced the conservation area controls, including prosecution and tree replacement notices (TRN). We recognise Mr X’s frustration, but it is not a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to pursue. Prosecution does not always lead to conviction. Even if the business were prosecuted and convicted, that would not change Mr X’s substantive position. Mr X’s sense of grievance at there not being a prosecution is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. We cannot direct the Council to prosecute, nor can we compel it to serve a TRN. Therefore, even if we were to investigate, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants because there are too many unknown variables and we cannot speculate on them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman