Summary: Mr X complained the Council cut down two trees on his property. He also complained about how the Council initially investigated the matter. The Council accepted fault, apologised and offered to replace the trees. In addition, the Council will pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble the matter caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council cut down two trees on his property. Mr X complained to the Council and after investigation, the Council accepted fault. The Council offered Mr X a solution to rectify the problem however Mr X was not satisfied with what it offered. Mr X said the whole matter has been frustrating and stressful and it has taken up a considerable amount of his time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
5. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In December 2020, Mr X noticed two trees in his front garden had been cut down. He assumed the Council did this as he had seen the Council in the area doing work on trees and bushes on Council owned land. Mr X asked the Council if it was responsible for cutting down his trees. The Council looked into Mr X’s query and asked the Arboriculture Team if it had carried out any work in the area. It said it did not have any tree contractors working in the area around that time. The Council responded to Mr X and made him aware of this.
7. Mr X was dissatisfied and complained to the Council. The Council then asked the Local Highways Officer and Maintenance Engineer if they had carried out any work in the area. The Local Highways Officer and Maintenance Engineer investigated the matter with the contractor and confirmed it did mistakenly cut down the trees in Mr X’s front garden. The Council apologised to Mr X. It said going forward, it will ensure that its communication with contractors is much clearer and that it requests the contractors to contact the Council if they are unsure about the work. In addition, the Council proposed to treat the tree stumps to allow them to decompose and to plant new trees in approximately the same location.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s proposed remedy. He said one of the trees which the Council cut down was 20 feet high. He added that the Council initially denied responsibility for cutting down his trees and it was left to him to pursue the matter further. Mr X said the ideal solution to this problem would be for the Council to mechanically remove the tree stumps and for it to plant trees of a similar size and age to what he had before. He continued that he wanted this to be done as soon as possible.
9. The Council responded to Mr X. It accepted full responsibility for cutting down his trees in error and it apologised to him again. The Council recognised that Mr X had to complain about the incident before it acknowledged the fault. It offered a payment of £50 to Mr X for the time and trouble caused.
10. The Council said it would not be able to remove the tree stumps mechanically due to power apparatus being situated underground in the area. Mechanically removing the tree stumps would risk damage to the equipment. It continued that the two replacement trees would be of a standard 1.5m – 2.1m in height of the same species that were cut down.
11. The Council concluded its response and said it was satisfied it had taken reasonable action in response to Mr X’s complaint and that the proposed remedy had been appropriately assessed.
12. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Back to top

Findings

13. The contractors acting on the Council’s behalf cut down the trees on Mr X’s property by mistake. This was fault.
14. When Mr X contacted the Council initially to find out why his trees had been cut down, the Council said it was not responsible for cutting down his trees. Mr X had to complain to the Council for it to investigate the matter further. This was fault.
15. The Council accepted it was at fault. It apologised to Mr X, offered to remove the tree stumps and to plant new trees. The Council cannot practically plant trees of the same height and age as those removed. It has also explained why it cannot mechanically remove the tree stumps. The Council offered to plant new trees and to chemically treat the tree stumps so they will decompose. I am satisfied the remedy it offered was appropriate.
16. The Council recognised the time and trouble the matter caused Mr X and offered a payment. However, in line with our Guidance on Remedies, I have recommended an increased payment to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused to Mr X.
17. The Council has made changes to the way it communicates with its contractors to ensure it is clearer about work that needs to be carried out. It has also requested that the contractors contact the Council if they are unsure about the work. This is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble the matter caused him.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have now completed my investigation. I have found fault which caused Mr X a personal injustice. The Council has agreed to action the remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman