Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council delaying removal of a tree from a nearby drainage ditch, and how it managed her requests for service to get the tree removed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the priority given to the works to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives in a Grade II listed property. A drainage ditch alongside a highway, which takes water from nearby fields and the highway, feeds on to her property. Ms X complains the Council:
1. has delayed removing a fallen tree from part of the drainage ditch;
2. failed to properly manage her requests for service to remove the tree.
2. Ms X says she and her partner have worried about flooding while the drain has been blocked and had to clear as much of the tree as they could during winter to prevent flooding. Ms X was frustrated that officers had not recorded her first request for service regarding the tree.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Ms X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to determine if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the process an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. In response to Ms X’s concerns, the Council visited her in winter 2024 and discussed the matter. Officers assessed the site and placed the tree removal work on their schedule. They did not give a date by which they would clear the ditch. Officers applied the Council’s policy on how to prioritise highways issues. By the time Ms X complained to us, the Council had not yet removed the tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. The Council has agreed to clear the tree. Officers considered appropriate evidence about the case and applied the Council’s policy when assigning their priority level to the clearance works required. Officers are entitled to make professional judgement decisions when determining which work in their area must take priority. We recognise Ms X may disagree with the Council’s decision not to do the drain clearance work sooner and give it greater priority. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. Even if there had been Council fault in the priority given to the drain clearance work, we would not investigate. We recognise Ms X and her partners' worry about increased flood risk due to the fallen tree led them to remove some of the debris themselves. We understand previous flooding at the property, which resulted in drainage works to reduce future flood risk, means Ms X worried about the impact of the blocked drain. But neither this worry about flooding nor the clearance work Ms X and her partner decided to do to the ditch amounts to such a sufficient significant personal injustice here to justify us investigating.
9. We also note that before the officer’s visit, Ms X had contacted the Council with the same concerns twice because she had not received a response to the first contact. We recognise this would have caused Ms X annoyance and frustration, and inconvenience from having to contact the Council again. But ultimately the Council responded to her reports and an officer visited to assess the situation. There is insufficient significant unresolved personal injustice from this part of the complaint to warrant us investigating.
10. We recognise Ms X is concerned about the tree causing flooding to her property. At the time of her complaint to us, there had been no flooding after the tree fell. We cannot consider injustices from events which have not happened. In any event, if Ms X’s property floods and she considers the Council is responsible, this would be a claim of legal liability for property damage. We cannot decide liability in such claims; only insurers and the courts can do this. If Ms X believes her property is flooded in future due to action or inaction by the Council, this would be a claim she could raise firstly with the Council’s insurers and, if her claim is not settled, for her to put before a court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the tree works to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to her to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman