Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s contractors when they carried out work on her tree. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation of the matter by this office could add to the responses already provided via the Council’s own investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions of the Council’s contractors when they carried out work on her tree. She says they mocked the ease and short nature of the job; charged her for half a day’s work despite it only taking 20 minutes and cut back the tree excessively. Mrs X also complains a Council officer was rude to her during a telephone call about the matter and hung up on her.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph one, above.
6. The Council investigated. It explained Mrs X was charged for a half day’s work because this is the minimum time frame charged for works. It said the contractors are an experienced agricultural firm and it decided to cut Mrs X’s tree in the way it did in order to maintain the long-term condition and balance of the tree.
7. On Mrs X’s complaint about inappropriate comments by the contractors, the Enforcement Officer said no such comments were heard being made during the site visit. On the complaint about the telephone call it said the officer had decided to end the telephone call because of the way she was spoken to and because Mrs X did not say who she was nor state the purpose of the call. It said the call was not recorded and so it was unable to verify either party’s account of the call.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation into these matters could add significantly if at all to the responses already provided via the Council’s own investigation of the matter.
9. The Council has confirmed Mrs X was charged for the minimum chargeable period for the works, which is half a day. As such there is no sign of fault in this half day charge being applied. How the contractors decided to cut back the tree was a matter of professional judgement for those workers to assess and decide. It is not a matter we can question or consider.
10. On the complaints about unprofessional comments by the contractor and Council officer on the phone we could not add to the responses already provided via the Council’s own investigation of these matters. Both parties have provided their recollections on these matters and it is unlikely that a further investigation will lead to either party changing their account or recollection of what was said now. I have no reason to doubt either party’s recollections and so I do not see that we could reliably reconcile the differing accounts and reach a fair view in relation to those points now.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could add not to the responses already provided via the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman