The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s TPO (Tree Preservation Order) works application. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council did not act reasonably or responsibly when it failed to inform him that his neighbour had submitted a TPO works application to carry out works to the neighbour’s tree which would have made Mr X’s own earlier application for works to the same tree unnecessary. Mr X says as a result of the Council’s failings he incurred costs for tree works which were not needed and for which he should be compensated.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X made an application to the Council to carry out works to a tree in a neighbour’s garden covered by a TPO which overhung his property. Subsequently the neighbour made their own application which made Mr X’s work unnecessary. However, not knowing this, Mr X paid for the works under his application to be carried out and complained to the Council that it should have informed him of his neighbour’s later application to save him paying for unnecessary works.
The Council declined to refund Mr X for the works he had paid for. It noted that while works under both applications had been approved, there was no obligation on either party to carry them out and that government guidance advised liaising directly with the tree owner about an application where an applicant is not the owner. It satisfied itself that officers had properly assessed both applications and that it had been under no legal obligation to have notified Mr X in the way he had outlined in his complaint.
While Mr X’s frustration at having carried out works which were later superseded by the neighbour’s application is understandable, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation. As Mr X has noted, the Council did follow its procedures and while the timing of the two applications was unfortunate, the Council did not have an obligation to keep Mr X informed of his neighbour’s application.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman