Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove or relocate a tree close to the front of his driveway. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to agree his request to remove or relocate a tree which he says obstructs his driveway. He says the tree makes it difficult and unsafe for him to enter and exit his driveway, forcing him to make unsafe manoeuvres and the tree’s roots are a trip hazard.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Council’s published Tree Policy 2023-28.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph 1, above.
9. The Council explained the tree is not in front of, or obstructing, Mr X’s dropped kerb as it is located on an area of raised kerb. It said the onus is on the driver to make safe manoeuvres and the driver would be responsible should they hit the tree as it is a static object. It inspected the tree and found it to be in good condition and that it posed no significant risk. It explained the tree does not meet the criteria for removal, as set out in its policy, as there is insufficient evidence of risk to people, damage to structures or obstruction to the public highway or dropped kerb.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, it is one it is entitled to make. It has considered Mr X’s request in line with its policy and it has clearly explained why the tree does not meet the criteria for removal. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman