Summary: Miss D complains Transport for London (TFL) delayed resolving problems with a tree that damaged her fencing. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by TFL and has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because TFL agrees to take action.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says TFL delayed resolving problems caused by a tree on its land which severely damaged her back garden fence in 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. He must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, he may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Miss D. I asked TFL questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 7 April 2018 Miss D contacted TFL reporting that a tree on its land needed maintenance work as it had damaged her fencing. TFL say it passed the case to its Asset Operations Team on 16 April who stated they would raise a work order to cut back the tree “in the next few weeks”. On 24 April TFL told Miss D the tree would be cut back in a few weeks. Miss D said the tree had ripped her fence apart and her garden was exposed to the road and causing security issues. She wanted TFL to assess the damage and resolve it. On 27 April Miss D contacted TFL for an update. TFL noted an Officer would visit the site in the next week.
7. I understand an Asset Operations Team Officer met Miss D at her home on 5 May. TFL have not provided any record of the meeting. Miss D says TFL told her the works (which she believed to include repairs to the fencing) would be completed in six weeks. TFL say the deadline was ten weeks. It is unclear from TFL’s records whether works were intended to be only for the tree or include the fence.
8. On 19 June Miss D called TFL and was told it would be ten weeks from 5 May for the works to be done. Miss D then contacted the Ombudsman. We notified TFL on 25 June that we had received a complaint and allowed TFL an opportunity to resolve it. TFL says the target to complete works to the tree was 14 July.
9. On 17 August TFL noted it called Miss D and spoke to the Asset Operations Team who advised “no work was confirmed to be carried out to the fencing”. It told Miss D about this and she said this was not what TFL had previously told her. TFL advised Miss D to make a claim for the damaged fencing.
10. On 21 August TFL noted the “contractors did not show up” at Miss D’s home and it told Miss D they would carry out the work the next day. On 22 August TFL noted the contractors had been unable to locate the property. It is unclear whether any work was carried out that day but on 23 August Miss D told TFL the tree had been cut back. TFL issued Miss D £100 for its failure to attend the appointments in August.
11. Miss D subsequently lodged a claim for the damage caused to her fence and TFL settled the claim in January 2019.

What should have happened

12. When TFL receive a complaint about highways maintenance issues it has ten days to investigate. It can refer the case to the Asset Operations Team to consider and resolve. The Asset Operations Team will raise a work order if maintenance is needed. An Officer may also carry out a site visit.
13. TFL says that “non-safety critical works”, as in this case, do not have set timeframes to respond to. Works are programmed in with other jobs to limit multiple visits to an area.

Was there fault by TFL

14. There is evidence of repeated failures by TFL in its handling of this case, delay, poor record keeping and poor communications with Miss D.
15. TFL state the target set for cutting back the tree was ten weeks, Miss D disputes this but I have not seen records from either party to show what timeframe was set. If the deadline had been ten week the works should have been complete by mid-June. Instead no works were undertaken until 22 or 23 August. That was a delay of at least five weeks.
16. TFL state that once it received contact from the Ombudsman it “pushed for the work to be competed as soon as possible”. The evidence shows that is not correct. TFL were aware towards the end of June that Miss D was in touch with the Ombudsman. Its records clearly show no action at all was taken until 17 August, over six weeks later, to progress the case. In my view TFL could and should have acted sooner to resolve matters for Miss D.
17. There was a lack of communication with Miss D. It was left to her to chase up TFL for information and to pursue a complaint. TFL failed to advise her about the need to make a claim for the damaged fencing until mid-August when it should have checked this matter in April as part of its consideration of the case. Miss D had to wait four months until she was given the advice and claim forms she needed. In addition, she was left uncertain about what works were being done and within what timeframe because TFL failed to confirm in writing what had been agreed at a site visit 5 May. Had an Officer sent an email at the time it would have prevented any confusion and set a clear audit trail.
18. I find the level of record keeping in this case to be extremely poor. TFL failed to supply me with copies of works orders which I would expect it to have retained. In addition, as set out above, good practice would be to make and retain notes of a site visit where an Officer is agreeing to carry out works. This lack of documentation makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate and needs to be improved upon.

Did the fault cause an injustice

19. Miss D was subject to delay and a lack of information from TFL. She had a garden without fencing and was concerned about security and whether her dogs would get onto the road and be injured by traffic. Had TFL acted better many of those concerns could have been minimised.

Agreed action

20. TFL has already paid Miss D £100. In addition, it has told me it will pay her a further £100 for its handling of the case. I welcome that offer and I consider a total of £200 adequately remedies the time and trouble caused to Miss D. However, I also feel TFL need to look at:
• paying additional redress for the distress caused to Miss D by its actions. I find a payment of £150 would be a reasonable amount; and
• consider how to better improve its record keeping, including site visits and work orders. It should set out its plans for improvement to the Ombudsman within four weeks of this case being closed.
21. TFL has agreed to the additional points I raised.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman