The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not contribute to the cost of felling a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot determine land ownership disputes.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not contribute to the cost of removing a tree.
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Another council asked Mr X to remove a fence which was obstructing a path. Mr X complied. Whilst dealing with the fence Mr X decided to remove a tree. He says he had to fell the tree to re-position the fence.
Mr X asked the Council for permission to remove the tree which was in his garden, near the fence. The Council said permission was not needed. Mr X removed the tree and found it was rotten and unsafe.
Mr X says the Council should contribute 50% of the cost of removing the tree because, when it was felled, he found it originated from half of the path belonging to the Council. The Council declined. The Council said the tree was on Mr X’s land and within his boundary, so was his responsibility.
I have checked with the Council and it did not ask Mr X to remove the tree and it did not require him to remove the tree.
Tree ownership is determined by the position of the trunk, not the roots. The owner of the tree is the owner of the land where the tree originated.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council did not ask Mr X to remove the tree and did not require him to remove it. It was Mr X’s decision to fell a tree which was standing within his garden. As the Council did not ask Mr X to fell the tree there is no suggestion of fault in its decision not to contribute to the cost of removal.
Mr X says the Council partly owns the tree; the Council disputes this and says the tree was within Mr X’s property boundary and was his responsibility to maintain. We do not determine land disputes or make decisions about land ownership. If Mr X continues to assert the Council partly owned the tree he would need to provide evidence to the Council and maybe seek a financial remedy through insurers or the courts.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot determine disputes about land or tree ownership.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman