Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in pruning a tree outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can make a claim on the Council’s insurance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has delayed pruning a tree which, like last year, will mean his home is damaged. Mr X wants the Council to take immediate action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the Council’s tree policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. There is a tree outside Mr X’s home. Mr X says the branches overhang his property and leaves and conkers block his gutters and cause damage.
5. The Council inspected the tree in October 2023 and decided no work was needed. Mr X disagreed with this assessment and says that, due to the Council’s inaction, he had to spend £140 on repairs.
6. The Council inspected the tree in July 2024. It found the tree to be in a good condition and did not need any priority work. The Council noted the tree posed an insignificant risk but did require some pruning. The Council told Mr X it would do the work over the coming winter.
7. Mr X complained and said the Council must do the work before the winter to prevent further damage. In response the Council repeated it will do the work over the winter which is an acceptable time frame.
8. Following his complaint to us, Mr X provided an update to say his home has been damaged and he expects the Council to pay for the repairs.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council prioritises tree work on the basis of risk and the condition of the tree. If tree officers assess a tree as posing an insignificant risk, and not requiring priority work, then the policy does not prescribe a timeframe in which the work should be completed. The winter has not ended so the Council has not exceeded the timeframe it gave to Mr X.
10. I appreciate Mr X wanted the Council to do the work before the winter began, and says his property has been damaged, but there is no reason for us to start an investigation because the timeframe does not breach the policy. Mr X may feel the tree warrants priority work but it is not for us to question the professional judgement of tree officers as to whether a tree presents a risk and requires priority work.
11. I also will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can make a claim on the Council’s insurance if he thinks the Council is responsible for the recent damage. The insurers will decide if the Council has been negligent and is responsible for any costs Mr X incurred. This is not a decision we can make.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X can make a claim on the Council’s insurance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman