Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a tree stump. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a tree stump left after a tree was removed having fallen in wind. Mr X says the tree stump poses a trip hazard and has made the pathway too narrow for his mobility scooter to pass it.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council considered the concerns Mr X raised about the tree stump which is on a grass area to the side of a footpath. It explained it leaves stumps because losing a tree can have an ecological impact and the stump provides a habitat for insects and bugs. The Council said the stump did not cause an obstruction as it is set back from the edge of the pathway. It measured the width of the pathway and confirmed it was wider than any mobility scooter and so it can accommodate mobility scooters, wheelchairs or pushchairs.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It acted on Mr X’s concerns and took suitable action to assess the issue in response. It has decided the stump does not pose a hazard and it has clearly explained its reasons to Mr X. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
9. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to say whether we agree or disagree with the Council’s decision. Instead we look at whether there is fault in the way the Council made its decision. If we decide, as here, that there is no sign of fault in the way the Council made its decision we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman