Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain a tree which damaged his car. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:

• failed to maintain a tree which subsequently caused damage to his car;
• failed to provide compensation due to damage caused by the tree, and;
• failed to respond to him in a timely manner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its response to Mr X, the Council’s insurance team explained it carries out routine inspections of the area every 18 months and that the tree in question was found to be in reasonable health in its most recent inspection. It said that the tree was also inspected after the incident and was found to be in reasonable condition. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy but there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
8. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue the matter through the courts if he holds the Council responsible for damage to his car. The courts are better placed to decide on matters related to liability.
9. It would not be a good use of public money to investigate the Council’s communication when I will not investigate the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman