Trees


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (17 004 168)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 21-Aug-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to deal with several complaints which he made about damage from trees, data protection, bonfire smoke and delays in replying. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. His complaints about damage and risk from trees to his property are private legal matters which are being dealt with as an insurance claim. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on the remaining matters which has caused injustice to Mr X.

  • Durham County Council (17 005 577)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 17-Aug-2017

    Summary: we will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of a licence to fell trees on Council-owned land. This is because we cannot add to the Council's own investigation and Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor was the Council required to survey trees on the land.

  • Derby City Council (16 017 769)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 14-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with a planning application by Mr X's neighbour to carry out works to trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

  • South Derbyshire District Council (16 019 246)

    Statement Upheld Trees 09-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to inform Mrs B of her appeal rights about her high hedge complaint on two occasions. This creates some unavoidable uncertainty that there may have been a different outcome with the hedge if Mrs B had appealed. The Council also took too long to make decisions and did not adequately communicate with Mrs B.

  • Manchester City Council (17 005 257)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 04-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as a claim for negligence should be made in court. We have not seen any evidence to suggest it is not reasonable for Mr X to take court action.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (17 005 664)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 29-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's response to his concerns about a tree close to his property because it is unlikely that he would identify fault on the Council's part.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 005 158)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 27-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with requests to carry out works to protected trees. The complainant had a right of appeal against the Council's decision on his request and it is also too late to consider this now. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice by the Council's decision on an application by a third party.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (17 004 415)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 27-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council failed to take enforcement action against unauthorised works to trees in a Conservation Area. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision not to pursue enforcement action.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (17 004 432)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 27-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about a tree preservation order (TPO) on a neighbour's tree, and the Council's decision to restrict his communications about that matter. This is because the Ombudsman has already decided similar complaints from Mr B about the TPO, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to impose its unreasonably persistent/vexatious complainant policy.

  • West Berkshire Council (16 011 333)

    Statement Upheld Trees 25-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council properly made a tree preservation order affecting X's land. But, the Council fell below acceptable administrative standards in dealing with X when making the order. In recognition of that poor service, the Council should apologise and pay X's representative £100. The Council should also consider preparing guidance for officers handling such orders to improve its service.

;