The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove a large tree outside Mrs B’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs B complains the Council has refused to remove a very large tree next to her home. Mrs B says the tree has completely outgrown the street and poses a real risk to people and buildings. Mrs B also says debris from the tree blocks her guttering, and bird droppings mean her driveway cannot be used.
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 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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B and viewed the tree on Google Streetview. I also considered the Council’s Highway Network Management Plan, available on the Council’s website, which sets out the Council’s policy on tree management.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s policy is to only carry out work to a tree where there is a foreseeable risk to safety of structures. The policy says the Council will not routinely respond to requests for tree work for private benefit, such as leaf fall or other deposits.
There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mrs B’s complaint.
The Council has acted in line with its policy by only considering whether this tree poses a safety risk.
A Council Tree Inspector has recently assessed the condition of this tree and decided it does not pose a safety risk. This was a professional judgement for the Inspector to make and we would not normally question such a judgement unless there is clear evidence of fault in the decision-making process.
Mrs B says the Inspector did not visit her. But, it was not necessary for the Inspector to visit Mrs B. The Inspector did not need to access Mrs B’s property to assess this tree, which is located on the pavement. Also, the Council was aware of her concerns about the tree.
Mrs B also says the assessment only lasted a couple of minutes. I find a Tree Inspector would have the relevant expertise to assess the condition of a tree and this could be done relatively quickly. A short visit is not evidence of fault.
So, an investigation is not justified.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman