The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cutting of trees and bushes directly behind the boundary wall to the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council’s contactors arrived unannounced without prior warning and cut down trees and bushes directly behind the boundary wall to his home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)) 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) Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
Mr B told us debris from the Council’s tree cutting fell into his back garden and could have injured his pets. He said the work was totally unnecessary and it has devastated the secure area directly behind his garden, which was a haven for wildlife and nesting bird species. Mr B said the creation of an open area accessible to anyone has affected his security and increased the noise and light pollution to his home. He told the Council it would take years for growth to regenerate in the affected area. So he wants the Council to restore the trees and bushes its contractors removed. Mr B told us about a previous similar Council exercise further along his street. He said the householders successfully challenged that situation, reaching an amicable compromise with the Council, but he had not been afforded the same courtesy as his neighbours.
The Council has considered Mr B’s complaint. It said its officer would normally write to residents as a matter of courtesy to tell them about forthcoming work. But in this case he was not able to do so. This means Mr B was unaware of the work. However, the purpose of the letter would have been to tell him when the work would be done. It was not a consultation exercise. There was no requirement to seek Mr B’s agreement to the work before it went ahead. In this case the trees were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order. While it would have been good practice for the Council to notify Mr B about its proposal to do the work on what was its land at that time, there was no requirement to do so or to consult him. So the Council’s failure to tell Mr B about the proposed work was not a serious enough failing for us to justify pursuing this issue.
In its initial response to Mr B’s complaint the Council explained its officer’s reasons for carrying out the work. This was a matter for the officer’s professional judgement. While Mr B takes issue with the necessity for the work, there is not enough evidence of fault it the way the officer’s decision was reached. The Council’s officer had visited the site and reached a judgement on what would be the most cost-effective solution for good management of the site.
If Mr B considers the Council has caused damage to his property, this would be a matter for the courts ultimately if the matter remains unresolved. That is because a court of law is the appropriate body to rule on liability for property damage.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman