Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a tree it owns near her property and what it told her about the works which have been done and when the next works are due. Even if the Council was wrong about when the tree was last cut back, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding its maintenance to warrant us investigating. Investigation of incorrect information given by an officer in 2023 about when the Council would next work on the tree would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives on a street with a Council-owned tree within the pavement near the front of her house. She complains the Council:
1. failed to cut back the tree in January 2023 when others in the street were;
2. incorrectly told her the tree had been pollarded in January 2023;
3. assured her the tree would be cut back last year but it was not.
2. Miss X says the matter has caused her a lot of stress, time and trouble. She says it was frustrating not being told the truth about the tree works. Miss X wants the Council to pollard the tree before bird nesting begins.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, online maps and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says other trees in the street were cut back in January 2023, but not the one near her property. In the Council’s final complaint response, it says the tree does not require any pruning or pollarding currently as works were done in January 2023. It does not say the January 2023 ‘works’ included the significant cutting back involved in tree pollarding. In any event, even if the Council said the tree was pollarded in January 2023 and this was wrong, officers responded to Miss X’s concerns, assessed the tree and determined it did not require any work at this time. They explained to Miss X that Council policy for the management of street trees means it does not pollard or prune them because they are blocking light, causing bird mess, attracting insects or causing leaf litter. These were impacts of the tree Miss X mentioned in her Council complaint. The Council advised Miss X that the tree would remain on its two-year schedule and further work would be due in 2025.
7. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
8. The Council’s officers applied the tree policy and considered Miss X’s concerns about the tree’s impacts when making their decision. It was a professional judgement officers were entitled to make that no work was currently required to the tree. They explained the impacts Miss X raised did not give them grounds under their policy to cut back the tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant investigation. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. A Council officer indicated to Miss X that the tree would have work done to it in late 2023. The Council accepts this information was inaccurate and has apologised to Miss X. We recognise this would have caused frustration and annoyance to her. But the Council’s apology and clarification of when the next work to the tree is due is the remedy we would have sought had we investigated. Investigation of this matter would therefore not lead to a different outcome, so we will not do so.
10. Miss X wants the Council to pollard the tree before the start of the bird nesting season. The Council has explained it does not pollard or trim trees to prevent nesting birds. We cannot order councils to do work to specific trees. That we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks from her complaint is another reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding tree works to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the inaccurate information given by an officer in 2023 would not lead to a different outcome; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman