Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council reneged on an agreement to carry out works to unsafe trees. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has provided a satisfactory apology for wrongly telling the complainant it would undertake works, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it reached the later conclusion that no works are necessary.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council agreed to undertake works to trees near his home which he felt were unsafe, but then said it would not do these works.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

3. When considering complaints about Council decisions, we look at whether there was procedural fault in the way a decision was made. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the Council’s tree maintenance policy/approach on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council in February about a fallen tree and the poor condition of some others near his home. He was told repair works would be completed within 28 days. When nothing was done, Mr X complained to the Council.
7. The Council explained that its contractor had given Mr X’s case the wrong priority status, and this generated an automatic message that works would be carried out. It has apologised for this error and any confusion caused. The Council’s Arboricultural Surveyor inspected the trees again in response to Mr X’s complaint, and no defects or safety concerns were identified as an immediate risk. The Council highlighted that its policy is to manage trees by way of minimal intervention sufficient to ensure the safety of highway users.
8. I appreciate Mr X’s expectations would have been raised by the Council originally saying it would undertake works to the trees. But I consider the Council’s apology was an appropriate way to address this error. And whilst Mr X might disagree with the Council’s later decision that no tree works are required, that was a professional judgement it was entitled to make. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, we consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way it was made. The Council’s surveyor inspected the tree, and its decision is in accordance with the Council’s general approach to the maintenance of trees in its area.
9. With reference to paragraph 3 above, the Ombudsman will therefore not investigate Mr X’s complaint because I am satisfied with the Council’s apology for the initial communication error, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it reached the more recent decision on whether tree works were necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s apology was an appropriate way to address the communication error, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it decided that no tree works are required at the present time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman