Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dangerous tree notice and the Council's subsequent communications as it is unlikely we could add to what the Council has already said.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about problems he experienced after the Council served a notice on him to remove dangerous trees which were adjacent to the highway. Mr X complains about a lack of coordination by the Council when a utility company needed to be involved, and the lack of response from the Council in response to his enquiries. In particular, Mr X complains the Council’s department responsible for managing its streets refused to allow temporary traffic lights to enable the removal of the trees and did not respond to Mr X’s emails. Mr X says this meant he was left in limbo, trying to arrange the tree removals and this caused him extra frustration.

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 any injustice is not sufficient to justify our involvement or 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council acknowledged that at times mitigating circumstances might give a landowner legitimate cause for delay in dealing with a tree notice. In recognition of this, the Council confirmed it was amending the wording of its notices to take account of this. The Council also apologised to Mr X about any lack of engagement from its tree officers and confirmed it would be removing the remaining trees at its own cost.
6. The Council explained why there had been an issue with the temporary traffic lights needed for Mr X’s work, in that other, ongoing works in the area, with temporary lights, overran, meaning temporary lights could not be installed for Mr X’s work.
7. While I recognise that Mr X remains dissatisfied following his experience, we will not investigate as I consider it is unlikely we could meaningfully add to what the Council has already said in response to his complaint. It clearly would have been preferable for Mr X to have received responses to his emails about the temporary traffic lights, so he was made aware of what the issue was. However, I do not consider the injustice caused to him by any fault in this regard is sufficient to justify our further involvement.
8. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to what the Council has already said and there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman