The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about tree maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council has gone back on an agreement from 2020 to trim tree branches on its leased land which overhangs onto Mr Y’s property. He is also unhappy with the way the Council has handled his complaint, which he says has caused him inconvenience, needing to chase the Council for a response.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council leases land from a third-party landowner. Mr Y lives next to the land and complained about the lack of maintenance to trees on the land, which had led to branches overhanging onto his property.
In 2020, the Council as part of a response to Mr Y’s complaint, agreed to trim overhanging branches at the Council’s cost. This was while ongoing dialogue with the landowner continued about removal of the trees. The Council says was intended as a goodwill gesture, but Mr Y says was agreed until the trees were removed. However, the trees have not been removed. Consequently, Mr Y has complained about the Council not having continued to carry out maintenance works, while the Council says it did not agree to be responsible for the work on trees where it overhangs onto Mr Y’s land.
In the Council’s response in 2024, it said that the agreement to remove trees had not been forthcoming from the landowner and the Council could not compel them to grant the permission. This would suggest that the Council has not been able to get the permission of the landowner to cut down the trees. It could therefore be argued that the period of dialogue the Council referred to is now at an end as it does not refer to continued attempts to obtain this permission. Without a clear agreement to confirm the Council agreed to continue the tree maintenance beyond such discussion, it would be unlikely that we could say there was fault in the Council’s lack of maintenance. If Mr Y does believe the Council made such an agreement, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. We could not however, decide such a liability.
Further, the Council has considered the trees need for maintenance and has sought expert opinion from its relevant team. It has concluded from this that the tree would not ordinarily, for its health, type and age, now need trimming in the way Mr Y is seeking.
We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. As the Council has considered whether it should act in its maintenance of the trees and properly formed a view based on this advice, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the decision was made to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate.
As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman