Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-008-445 Sector Environment And Regulation Category Trees Decided 09 December 2022

View Richmond upon Thames Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a tree outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

The complaint

The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about a tree outside his home. He says the tree blocks light to his property and drops sap and fruit onto the cars causing damage and onto the pavement causing a risk to pedestrians. Mr X says the tree is unsuitable for a residential area and should be replaced.

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council’s tree policy says it will only remove trees if they are dead, dying, dangerous, causing an unacceptable obstruction or are deemed by a tree officer to be inappropriate for its setting.

On receipt of Mr X’s complaint, the Arboricultural Manager visited Mr X’s property and inspected the tree. They considered Mr X’s complaint about the species of the tree not being appropriate for the area. However, the Council concluded that the tree was not inappropriate for the area and explained why.

They Council did note some damage to the footpath which was reported to highways and has instructed its contractor to cut back some branches which are getting close to Mr X’s property.

The Council said that with any tree there is a risk of trees shedding leaves and fruit, which the Council is unable to prevent. It also concluded shedding of leaves and fruit did not justify works to the tree.

I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately by sending a qualified arboriculturist to inspect the tree and it was their professional opinion that the tree was not unsuitable for the area and would not be removed. The decision is consistent with the Council’s policy.

In addition, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. We could not ask the Council to carry out additional work to the tree or to remove it when that would be contrary to the professional opinion of a tree officer and contrary to the Council’s tree policy. Whilst Mr X may disagree with the Council’s tree policy, it is for the Council, and not the Ombudsman to decide how it manages trees.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-002-750 Upheld
25-013-831 Upheld
25-010-305 Other
25-012-512 Other
25-011-800 Other
View all decisions for this organisation