Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a tree ownership dispute. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council told his neighbour that he owns a strip of land on which there were high trees when he does not own the land. He is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint.
2. Mr Y says this caused bad feeling between him and his neighbour and he had to spend £114 to have a lawyer confirm to the Council that he does not own the land and is not therefore responsible for the overgrown trees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021, Mr Y’s neighbour approached the Council about overgrown trees on the land between his house and Mr Y’s property. The Council contacted another local authority to ask about the land. It says the other local authority told it, and it subsequently told the neighbour, that Mr Y owned the land on which the trees stood. The Council therefore advised the neighbour that the dispute was between him and Mr Y and that he could take legal advice about the matter.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council in May. He also sought advice from his solicitor. The solicitor obtained a copy of Mr Y’s title deeds which showed he did not own the land and was not responsible for this. Mr Y says this advice cost him £114 in fees from the solicitor.
8. Mr Y presented this information to the Council who accepted that Mr Y did not in fact own the land. Mr Y continued to complain, but was repeatedly asked by the Council to make a new complaint under a new reference. Mr Y is also unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to provide a response to his complaint. Mr Y’s complaint letters say that he had spent several hours dealing with the issue and he asked the Council to pay him for this time, at a rate of £200 per hour.
9. The Council provided its final response to Mr Y’s complaint in November. It apologised for the errors made in the handling of Mr Y’s complaint. It said it had spoken to the staff members involved and had added Mr Y’s concerns about its electronic complaint forms to its records to be considered as part of future updates.
10. The Council also said it would not pay Mr Y for the £114 he had spent on legal fees as part of any complaint as it had considered this as a legal claim for compensation and advised Mr Y to consider seeking further legal advice if he wanted to pursue such a claim.

Analysis

11. The Council’s actions did not require Mr Y to answer any claim from the neighbour or the Council. Mr Y was not required to seek legal advice but instead did this of his own choice and at his own expense. He could have taken alternative steps such as speaking or writing to the neighbour or waiting for a claim to be made before seeking legal advice. However, Mr Y did not do this and spent £114 on getting advice for his own peace of mind. Consequently, we would not consider this an injustice caused by any fault of the Council in the service it provided to Mr Y.
12. Mr Y’s remaining injustice is the inconvenience caused by the ill-feeling between him and his neighbour and the difficulties he experienced in raising his complaint.
13. As Mr Y has proven he does not own the land, and the Council has accepted this, the ill-feeling between him and his neighbour is a personal matter likely to have been temporary and short-lived. We would not consider this to be a significant enough injustice to warrant our investigation.
14. The Council has also recognised the difficulties Mr Y faced when making his complaint and has apologised for this. This will have reduced any frustration caused and so there is not a significant enough remaining injustice to warrant our involvement.
15. Further, 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.
    As we are not investigating Mr Y’s substantive complaint we will not investigate the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman