not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision in 2020 to give his neighbour permission to prune Mr X’s tree, covered by a Tree Preservation Order, and not notify him of the decision. Even if there was fault in the Council’s decision‑making process, the matter has not caused significant injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in it not notifying Mr X of its decision to justify us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X owns a tree, protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He complains the Council: did not notify and involve him of its decision to allow his neighbour to lop branches from one side of his tree; allowed the work in contravention of their own policies Mr X says the pruning has had an adverse effect on the visual impact of his tree and he lost the opportunity to be involved in the decision. He wants a meaningful apology, for the Council to notify tree owners about TPO tree works in future, to have owners’ views taken into account, and to only employ properly qualified tree consultants.
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; any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X considers the Council’s 2020 decision to give his neighbour permission was flawed as it did not follow relevant policies. But even if the Council’s decision‑making involved fault, we will not investigate. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused to Mr X by the matter to warrant an investigation. I recognise Mr X does not like the look of his tree after the pruning took place. But there is no reported adverse impact on the tree other than how it looked after the pruning. I also understand Mr X would have had frustration and disappointment from not being involved in the decision process at the time. But these matters do not amount to a sufficient injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s 2020 decision to warrant us investigating.
Mr X also complains the Council failed to notify him of its decision on the TPO tree works or involve him in it. The Council says when it received Mr X’s neighbour’s application to do the work, it reminded the neighbour it was their responsibility to make sure they had the landowner’s permission to carry it out. There is no specific duty on councils to notify or consult TPO tree owners where another person has sought to do work to the owner’s tree. National government guidance advises councils to consider consulting the tree’s owner where the work may affect other local residents and there is a wider public interest raised by the work. But this is guidance, not a statutory duty on councils. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in respect of it not notifying Mr X about the requested TPO works to justify us investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: even if there was fault in the Council’s decision to give his neighbour permission to prune Mr X’s tree, the matter has not caused him such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating; and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in it not notifying and consulting Mr X on its decision to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman