Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cut back trees which overhang his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s management of trees alongside the road next to his home. Mr B says there are a few large branches which overhang his property that he considers are a risk to users of his garden, particularly his grandchildren. Mr B complains the Council has refused to cut back the branches and did not visit his property before making this decision. Mr B would like the Council to visit his property and cut back the branches.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s policy is to only cut or remove trees which prevent a risk to users of the highway. The Council’s policy says it is unlikely to take action about trees which overhang property boundaries.
6. In response to Mr B’s concerns, relevant Council officers have twice inspected the trees Mr B would like cutting back. Mr B is concerned these trees have become unbalanced because branches were recently cut back on the roadside.
7. The Council says officers were satisfied there were no defects or evidence to suggest the trees had become unstable.
8. So, the Council decided not to undertake any pruning work to the trees. I have not seen any information to suggest this decision was affected by fault.
9. Mr B complains the Council did not visit his property before making this decision. But, we are unlikely to criticise the professional judgement of the Council’s tree officers that this assessment could be made from the roadside.
10. In addition, Mr B has the right to cut back any branches which overhang his property. So, the Council’s decision does not prevent Mr B removing the branches he is concerned about. This means an investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman