The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove a tree outside his property. This is because part of the complaint is late. And, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s more recent decision-making to justify investigating. Also, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a related vehicle crossover request because it is premature.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to resolve concerns regarding a tree that he says it negligently planted directly in front of his property. He says the Council's obstructive planting prevents off-street parking, forcing him to park on the road where his vehicle was recently struck, causing £6,000 in repair costs. Mr X says the Council previously removed a tree at the same location for a trivial reason. But, he complains the Council refused to exercise the same discretion despite raising legitimate safety, financial, and equality concerns. Mr X says this shows an arbitrary and discriminatory application of policy by the Council.
Mr X says, unlike most of his neighbours, the Council’s actions have unfairly prevented him from installing a driveway. He says the tree is a physical obstruction that prevents family members, who are blue badge holders, from safely accessing his home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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) We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains about the Council’s original decision to plant the tree and its previous decision to remove a tree in the same location. This complaint is late and there are no good reasons to look at this complaint now. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council’s decision to plant the tree, as a replacement of the previous one at the same location, dates from 2020/21. Mr X first complained to the Ombudsman in June 2026, meaning, usually, we would not consider events before June 2025. Mr X could have complained to us much sooner if he wished for us to consider the Council’s historic decisions. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X that it had inspected the tree in March 2026 after Mr X enquired about its removal. It considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people following the points raised in Mr X’s complaint. But, the Council decided the tree was in good condition and showed no signs of ill health or any structural defects. So, the Council refused to remove the healthy tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. It carried out an inspection of the tree and gave clear reasons for refusing to remove the tree based on its professional judgment. The Ombudsman cannot find that a Council has breached the Equality Act. From the information I have seen, the Council appears to have considered its duties under the Equality Act when making this decision. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X hopes to achieve of removing or relocating the tree. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s decision was negligent. Mr X says his car was recently struck by another vehicle while parking on the road, costing him £6,000 in repair costs. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in complaints involving damage to property. Claims for personal injury and compensation are a matter for council insurers and, ultimately, for the courts. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to follow this process.
So far as Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his request for a vehicle crossover, we will not investigate this complaint. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X he could apply for a vehicle crossover. Based on the evidence I have seen, Mr X has not yet made an application to the Council, meaning the Council has not made a formal decision about any such application. So, we will not investigate this complaint because it is premature. If Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of any future application, including the Council’s consideration of its duties under the Equality Act 2010, it is open to him to make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.
It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling, including the adequacy and timeliness of its responses, when we are not investigating the substantive matters. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. So, we will not investigate this matter as a standalone issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove a tree outside his property. This is because part of the complaint is late. And, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s more recent decision-making to justify investigating. Also, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a related vehicle crossover request because it is premature.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman