The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune some trees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not prune some trees near his home. He says the Council has not recognised the dangers the trees pose and has let the trees grow out of control. He wants the Council to cut down the overhanging trees.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X asked the Council to prune some trees. He says the branches overhang his property and prevent him improving his TV reception. He thinks the trees pose a risk especially as there are branches touching his roof and one tree overhangs the house.
A tree officer inspected the trees. He decided no work is needed apart from one tree which needs to be removed.
In response to his complaint the Council explained the trees are part of the green belt and a nature reserve, and form part of an ancient woodland. It said the trees have significant amenity value and a tree officer has decided no work is needed. The Council explained Mr X can cut the trees back to the boundary but this would not be carried out by the Council or be funded by the Council.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has responded appropriately by arranging for a tree officer to inspect the trees and by explaining the findings to Mr X. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the outcome but it is not fault for a council to follow the professional judgement of a qualified tree officer. If the trees pose a risk then this is something that would have been identified by the tree officer and works arranged if needed. Mr X can, however, arrange for the branches to be pruned to the boundary.
Mr X does not believe the tree officer visited because, if he had, he would have seen the tree touches his roof. However, the Council has confirmed the trees were inspected by a tree officer and the site was also assessed by the officer who replied to the complaint. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment but that disagreement is not evidence the Council did not inspect the trees.
We do not act as an appeal body and are not tree officers. We cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with and we cannot say the judgement of a qualified tree officer is wrong. We are not qualified to inspect trees or form a view about their safety or whether work is needed – that is the job of the Council and its professional officers.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman