The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to complete works to an overgrown tree despite promising to Mr X on at least two occasions it would cut it back. Mr X has been put to significant time and trouble in pursuing the matter for over two years. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment for the time and trouble and also to complete the works to the tree as it said it would.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to carry out works to an overgrown tree which is encroaching heavily into his garden. He also complains the Council has failed to respond to his complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided.
I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
Mr X and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making this final decision.
What I found
What happened This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
Mr X lives next to a council owned property that has a large, overgrown elm tree. Mr X reported his concerns about the impact of the overgrown tree to the Council in June 2020 and he requested for it to be cut back. Mr X says the Council advised him it would attend to it in November 2020 but it failed to do this.
Due to the ongoing impact of the overgrown tree, Mr X contacted the Council again in January 2021. The Council said it would look into the matter and advised it may need to arrange another inspection of the tree.
Mr X contacted the Council again in March 2021 and asked for an update. The Council apologised for the delay and said that there was a long waiting list of people that needed trees to be inspected and cut back. The Council proceeded to arrange another inspection of the tree. Following this inspection, the Council advised Mr X there was no problem with the tree and that it would not fell a healthy tree. It apologised to Mr X that it was unable to take the matter any further.
Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response as he did not request for the tree to be removed, he wanted it cut back which is what the Council had previously agreed to do. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council and relayed his frustration with the situation.
The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and sent a Stage 1 complaint response to him on 31 March 2021. The Council acknowledged it had advised Mr X it would cut the tree back and its failure to follow this up. It apologised for advising him it would not cut the tree after it inspected it a second time in March 2021. The Council said it would expedite the works to be undertaken and apologised the matter had gone on for so long. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the Stage 1 complaint response from the Council, he had until 21 April 2021 to escalate it to Stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council said if it had not heard from Mr X by 21 April 2021, it would assume he does not require any further action to be taken.
Mr X did not escalate his complaint to Stage 2 at this time because he was happy with the Stage 1 outcome. However, the Council failed to undertake the work despite Mr X chasing the Council on 21 June 2021, 23 August 2021 and 9 October 2021.
Mr X failed to receive a response from the Council so he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. We advised Mr X to contact the Council to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of the process. Mr X requested this from the Council on 29 October 2021. He contacted the Ombudsman again on 21 January 2022 to advise the Council had not responded and he also submitted evidence of his request to the Council.
Analysis In response to my enquiries, the Council advised me it did not receive Mr X’s emails from June 2021 onwards due to the system classing them as spam and it said that had he called the Council’s offices it would have returned his call to discuss the matter. However, I find that despite the technical issues with emails and the assertion Mr X did not telephone the Council’s offices, he should not have had to chase the Council to complete the works it said it would, particularly after the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response when it promised to put things right.
The Council agreed to expedite the works to the tree after he was previously let down by the Council. It agreed to complete the works on two separate occasions and on both occasions the Council failed to act. This is fault. The Council is also at fault for agreeing to undertake the works and then advising Mr X it would no longer cut the tree back. This fault raised Mr X’s expectations and led him to go to considerable time and trouble to pursue his complaint.
As Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman without exhausting the Council’s complaint process, we referred him back to the Council for it to respond to his complaint at Stage 2. The Council were given six weeks to respond but it failed to do this. This delayed matters even further which caused Mr X considerable frustration and the inconvenience of repeatedly contacting the Council. We asked the Council if Mr X had exhausted its complaint process and it said he had. However, I have not seen any evidence it considered his complaint at Stage 2 of its complaint process. This is also fault.
The matter has been ongoing since June 2020 and despite the Council’s promises and Mr X chasing the matter on several occasions since then, the works to the tree are yet to take place.
Agreed action
Within eight weeks of this final decision, the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Mr X for raising his expectations and failing to carry out the works it promised to on at least two occasions; Pay Mr X £250 in acknowledgement of the raised expectations, the unnecessary time and trouble he has been put to in chasing the Council since June 2020, the unnecessary inconvenience of pursuing this complaint and the frustration caused; and Undertake the works to the tree as it said it would.
Within nine weeks of this final decision, the Council has agreed to provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has completed the above actions.
Final decision
There is fault by the Council and it caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to the recommendations I made to remedy the injustice caused by the faults to Mr X. Therefore, I have completed my investigation and closed this case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman