Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns about a tree blocking a streetlight near his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council left his street‑lighting report unprocessed for nine months, then gave incorrect and contradictory information about work they claimed had been done but was not. The streetlamp has remained blocked for nearly a year, causing safety concerns. Mr X wants the Council to complete the pruning, correct the misinformation, improve its processes, and issue a formal apology.

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 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X reported a tree blocking a streetlamp in October 2024. In September 2025, after months with no action, he complained to the Council.
7. The Council apologised and explained that an administrative error had prevented the report from reaching the street‑lighting team until June 2025, after which they scheduled the work for September, as pruning is not carried out over the summer months. They said the pruning was completed on the 18 September 2025.
8. Mr X complained further disputing any pruning had been done.
9. The Council apologised and admitted their earlier information was wrong. They said operatives had inspected the tree, judged that a one‑metre clearance was already in place between the streetlamp and the tree, and decided no pruning was required under Council policy. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make. I have not seen evidence of fault in how the decision was reached so I cannot question its merits.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify our involvement. The Council inspected the tree in line with its policy and decided that pruning was unnecessary. Although the Council made administrative errors, it has acknowledged them and apologised to Mr X. Further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman