Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her concerns about a tree near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• failed to properly investigate her concerns about the safety of a tree located on council-owned land near her property;
• provided contradictory information regarding the health of the tree; and
• failed to consider the impact on her and her family.
2. Mrs X also raised concerns about the Council’s complaint handling.
3. Mrs X said these issues had a negative impact on the physical and mental health of her and her husband. She said it also affected her ability to get home insurance. She wanted the Council to remove the tree.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X raised concerns to the Council regarding the safety risks of a tree near her property line. She complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns.
8. The evidence shows after Mrs X raised concerns; the Council arranged an inspection of the tree by its tree officer. The officer confirmed the tree:
• was in good health;
• showed no signs of disease or effects; and
• did not require removal or further pollarding.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s concerns, arranged an inspection of the tree and informed her of its findings.
10. Mrs X said the Council provided her with contradictory information concerning the health of the tree. This relates to when the Council provided Mrs X with the findings of its inspection; Mrs X then asked for a guarantee that the tree would not come down.
11. The Council explained despite the confirmed good health of the tree, no professional could guarantee the tree would not come down due to weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. This is not contradictory information, but a response to Mrs X’s further query about future possibilities.
12. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to consider the impact on her and her family. The evidence shows that in its response; the Council acknowledged and considered the reported impacts on Mrs X and her family. It explained that despite these, its investigation found the tree did not present a level of risk that warranted intervention.
13. We will not investigate these points of complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.
14. Mrs X also raised concerns about how the Council handled her complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman