The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the removal of a tree near his home because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused by the tree’s removal or about trespass because the Council is not responsible for the issues complained about. An investigation into Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council’s complaint process is unlikely to achieve any further outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained: the Council failed to notify him of work conducted to a tree near his home; the contactors that removed the tree trespassed on his property; the removal of the tree caused damage to his shed; and about delays in the Council’s complaint process.
Mr X says the matters caused him frustration, distress, and affected his amenity.
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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Tree Preservation Order We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to notify him of work conducted to a tree in its area.
The Council received a notice of proposed works to a tree in a conservation area near Mr X’s home. The Council had six weeks to decide whether to make a Tree Protection Order (TPO). The Council considered the position of the tree, its lack of prominence in the conservation area, and its overall health and appearance. It decided not to make a TPO for the tree.
There is insufficient evidence of fault in this process to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate this complaint.
Tree felling, notification, trespass, and damages Mr X said the Council failed to notify him that work would be conducted on the tree. However, the Council does not own the tree and did not make a TPO. The process of carrying out work to the tree was therefore a private matter.
Mr X said the workers that felled the tree entered his property without permission and the felling of the tree resulted in damage to his shed. These are private matters between Mr X, the owner of the tree, and the contracted tree service. These matters do not fall within the administrative functions of the Council, and so we cannot investigate these matters.
Delay in complaint response Mr X complained the Council’s stage one complaint response was delayed. The Council sent Mr X a stage one complaint response seven working days late. In its stage two complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay. Further investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome, and so we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about trespass or damage because the Council is not responsible for the issues complained about. An investigation into Mr X’s complaint about delay is unlikely to achieve any further outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman