Trees


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (16 019 529)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 19-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's refusal to remove a highway tree. It is unlikely that he would find fault on the Council's part, or achieve the outcome Mr A wants.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (16 018 833)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs A's complaint about the Council's response to her request for action under high hedges legislation because she has used her right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (16 016 670)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 10-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A's complaint about the process leading to the Council's decision to refuse his application to fell a tree. He has used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector and that Ombudsman cannot intervene.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (16 004 470)

    Statement Upheld Trees 06-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to consider a Tree Preservation Order and the site's historic park status when it approved development of a listed building. The Council investigated complaints of damage to trees appropriately but it did not record what it considered or its later reviews of the trees. The Council agreed to survey the site trees. It also agreed to apologise and pay a total of £200 to Mr Z and Mr Y for the time and trouble they were put to in pursuing the complaint.

  • Norwich City Council (16 006 656)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is no fault with how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

  • London Borough of Harrow (16 018 301)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about the Council's refusal to cover the cost of works to repair damage caused by tree roots. He cannot establish whether the Council is liable. The matter may be decided in court.

  • Reading Borough Council (16 018 630)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint that the Council has refused to prune a tree because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council's part.

  • Staffordshire County Council (16 007 230)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal to remove or prune trees in the highway opposite his home. He says his property is suffering cracking from the roots of the trees. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Liability for property damage due to negligence is a private legal matter for which Mr X could seek a remedy in the courts.

  • London Borough of Havering (16 015 323)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's refusal to accept liability for damage to their property caused by a large highway tree. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The courts can and do consider questions of liability for damage to property. There is no reason why Mr and Mrs X should not pursue their claim in the courts if their insurers are unable to convince the Council of liability.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 017 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A's complaint that the Council has failed to adequately prune a tree because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council's part.

;