The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to place preservation orders on the private road where Mr X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider his complaint about its rejection of his requests for placing preservation orders on two lime trees on the private road where he lives.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (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
Mr X aske the Council to place a Tree preservation Order (TPO) on a large lime tree on the private road where he lives. The Council inspected the tree and told him that it did not merit an order because it had a large historic wound which would limit its lifespan in future.
In November 2021 Mr X asked the Council to place a TPO on a second, smaller lime tree in the verge. The Council told him that the tree was beyond the property boundary of the nearest house and that the owners would therefore not be able to carry out works on it. Mr X says this was an invalid reason because the owners owned the land in the private street out to the centre of the carriageway and it was not an adopted highway. This meant they would not require permission to carry out work on their own property. He submitted a complaint about the inconsistency of the decisions.
In response the Council’s officers carried out an assessment on six trees on the road in question. The officer’s report decided that three lime trees, including the one subject to the second application and a horse chestnut, did not warrant Orders because they had all been historically pollarded and lifted and the wounds from this affected their future.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. Councils’ powers to apply TPO’s are discretionary and they must decide if it is expedient to do so. In this case the Council considered Mr X’s requests and following inspection its officers did not believe the trees in question warranted individual orders.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to place preservation orders on the private road where Mr X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman