Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to cut back branches from a tree on the highway which overhangs her property. We could not add to the Council’s investigation. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome. The Council has apologised for initially giving the complainant the wrong information. This is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council told her it would cut back tree branches overhanging her property. It later confirmed this information was wrong and it would not be cutting back the tree.
2. Mrs X says the overhanging branches drop debris and sap into her property and onto her car.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has apologised for giving Mrs X the wrong information. I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice the error caused.
7. The Council has inspected the tree. It says it is in a fair condition and arranged for deadwood to be removed from the crown. The Council’s published tree policy states it will not cut back a tree on the highway just because:
• branches overhang private property without causing a legitimate obstruction
• branches drop sap or debris
• to clear existing solar panels or allow for such installation
8. The Council’s policy states property owners have the right to prune trees overhanging their property back to their boundary. The property owner is responsible for the cost of the work. They should also ensure the tree is not protected and the work does not compromise the tree.
9. As explained by the Council, Mrs X has a common law right to remove branches from trees overhanging her property at her expense. If her property is damaged by the tree she may submit a claim for this to the Council’s insurer.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council’s apology for initially providing incorrect information is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. The Council’s published policy on street trees is clear that it will not prune back overhanging branches because of falling debris. We do not consider that we can add to the Council’s investigation. Nor do we believe that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman