Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Havering (21 002 739)

    Statement Upheld Trees 17-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to protect trees near her home before they were cut down. We found the Council at fault for not responding to a request to make a tree preservation order to protect the trees. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X for the distress arising from the uncertainty about whether the trees might have been protected.

  • Torbay Council (21 010 727)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 11-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr D complains about the removal of trees in a conservation area. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because there is no personal injustice to Mr D.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 002 278)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 07-Jan-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to remove or properly cut back a tree near to her home. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council's decision-making.

  • Redditch Borough Council (21 006 737)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 15-Dec-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to cut down several trees at the rear of Mr X's property.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (21 002 497)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to consider an application to amend planning permission to be a non-material amendment. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision.

  • London Borough of Ealing (21 001 859)

    Statement Upheld Trees 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: The Council wrongly promised to complete works to a tree outside Mr B's house. This raised Mr B's expectations. The Council took no action for a year; because of this it completed the works as a gesture of goodwill but failed to explain this to Mr B to manage his future expectations. The Council acknowledged Mr B's complaint on three occasions over the year, but never investigated or provided a response until Mr B involved the Ombudsman. The Council has apologised for failures in service, but to recognise Mr B's unnecessary time, trouble, and frustration the Council will pay £100.

  • City of London (21 000 565)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 24-Nov-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Ms D's complaint about its excessive actions when it removed trees and vegetation from land it owns to the rear of her property following her report to it of it trespassing on to her land causing damage. It had no legal obligation to notify her of the works. Officers responded properly to her report and acted on it. They later explained why they removed what they did.

  • Leicester City Council (21 003 097)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 18-Nov-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it approved planning permission for a development near to Mr X's home.

  • City of York Council (21 005 049)

    Statement Upheld Trees 05-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of trees from a local park. This is because the Council has already offered a proportionate remedy and there is not enough significant injustice remaining to justify our investigation.

  • Worcestershire County Council (21 000 007)

    Statement Upheld Trees 26-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs J complains about a failure by the relevant local authorities to take action against her neighbours who have allegedly encroached highway land and breached their respective planning permissions. We have not seen any evidence of fault by the highway authority with respect to how it determined the ownership of the land in question. Further, there is no evidence of fault by the planning authority in how it decided to not take discretionary enforcement action. The law says we cannot question the merits of a council decision in the absence of fault. There was however evidence of fault in the way the highway authority considered Mrs J's complaint. This caused her an injustice and so we have recommended a small financial payment be made.