Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not pruning or removing a tree near his property and delaying responding to his May 2024 complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessments of the tree to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. The Council has apologised for not sending its reply to his May complaint and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property in a rural area. Across a narrow lane from his property is a Council-owned verge with a large tree. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has refused to do work to the tree to make it safe;
2. failed to reply to one of his complaint letters about the tree.
2. Mr X is worried that if the tree falls it will damage his house and harm its occupants. He says some friends and relatives will not visit when the weather is windy. He says he has to have leaf litter from the tree removed from his gutters. Mr X wants the Council to prune the tree so it will not pose a threat, or to remove it completely.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. 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 was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s reports about the tree, the Council sent officers to inspect it. Each officer has determined the tree complied with the Council’s standards and did not require any work. The latest inspection concluded the tree was not diseased, damaged or dying, nor causing damage to the highway or property. The Council advises it will inspect the tree every 18 months as part of its cyclical inspection process.
8. We understand Mr X says there is a shale seam in the area which does not allow apparently healthy trees to properly root and he believes this tree is also in that seam. But we cannot make a finding on whether Mr X’s belief about the ground in which the tree is rooted is correct and whether that has any bearing on the tree’s condition. Officers have used their professional judgement to determine the health and vigour of the tree as part of their assessment, which we have no grounds to replace with a different judgement.
9. Officers gathered information about the tree and applied the Council’s policies when deciding not to do work to it. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision and investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. The outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for us to order the Council to prune or remove the tree. We cannot issue such orders to councils. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. The Council accepts it did not reply to Mr X’s May 2024 letter about the tree. Officers have apologised to Mr X for this error, which is the appropriate outcome. Investigation by us into this issue would not result in a different outcome. Furthermore, we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. This limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessments of the tree to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcome he wants; and
• the Council’s apology for not sending its reply to his May complaint is the appropriate outcome and investigation would not lead to a different one; and
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman