Homes Plus Limited (202308385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308385

Homes Plus Limited

29 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to cut back the trees in her back garden.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove waste from her garden.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. Her tenancy started in 2022.
3. Prior to the resident moving into the property, she made enquiries of the landlord about its void processes. The landlord told her that it could request a cut back and clear of the garden once she has moved in. The landlord said that tree cutting works could not take place during the nesting season which ran from approximately the end of March until August or September each year.
4. The landlord arranged a sign-up with the resident on 16 August 2022, but this did not go ahead because the property did not meet the landlord’s letting standard. There were several issues with the property flagged, one of which was that while it had cut the grass, the garden was still overgrown. The landlord’s building inspector attended and raised works to remove some debris in the garden, but did not arrange to cut back the hedges and trees. 
5. The resident signed up for the property in October 2022 but continued to raise concerns about the height of trees in the garden and the removal of waste at the bottom of her garden. She chased this in November and December 2022 and in January 2023.
6. On 24 January 2023, the landlord’s grounds maintenance team attended the property to undertake further garden works but found possible asbestos in the garden. This meant that works had to stop pending removal of the asbestos. On 6 February 2023, the landlord’s contractors removed the asbestos. On 22 February 2023, the landlord cut back the hedges in the resident’s garden and confirmed that the trees were at its quality standard of “at a manageable height”. The resident queried this on 1 March 2023, and the landlord told her that there were no plans to complete further works and that she should raise a complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
7. On 3 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord.  She said that:
   1. The landlord had told her when she signed her tenancy that it would remove rubbish from the garden and cut back the trees and hedges to a manageable height. She said that it had not removed all the rubbish and, while it had cut the hedges back, the trees were not at a manageable height.
   2. She requested an apology for its lack of communication with her.
8. The landlord responded on 17 March 2023.  It said that:
   1. The maintainable standard on hedges is that they are cut back to a manageable height, however with regards to trees, this did not include reducing the height of trees, only removing overhanging branches.
   2. It would only cut down trees where the trees were unhealthy or dangerous. The grounds maintenance team had concluded that the trees were safe and healthy.
   3. It said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the removal of waste. The delay in removing the waste was due to the discovery of asbestos. It had since cleared the remaining waste. 
   4. It conceded that it did not communicate effectively with the resident or manage her expectations about tree management.
   5. It acknowledged that there was a delay in the grounds maintenance team carrying out works prior to her moving into the property and that it did not send instructions to the grounds maintenance team to return in October or November 2022, which delayed the removal of the waste.
9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint as she said the landlord gave her incorrect information about tree management and that there was still waste in her garden that it needed to remove.
10. The landlord responded on 18 May 2023 at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said that:
    1. It did not have to carry out further work to the trees, in line with its policy. However, it would inspect the trees periodically to assess whether there were any health and safety concerns.
    2. It had arranged for a further inspection of the property with a view to removing the remaining waste. It upheld the resident’s complaint because of the delay in removing the waste and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
11. The asbestos surveyor attended the property on 22 May 2023, and the landlord removed the remaining items from the garden on 31 May 2023. The resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to cut back the trees in her garden

12. The landlord’s lettable standard says that:
    1. It will remove rubbish from the front and back gardens, and it will leave gardens in a condition that residents can maintain.
    2. It will cut back any overgrown hedges, lawns and trees. The ongoing maintenance is the resident’s responsibility.
13. Its tree management policy says that:
    1. Where there is a clear and foreseeable risk to the safety of residents, visitors or to the property, that is related to the condition of the tree, it will minimise the risk.
    2. It will only fell a tree if it believes it necessary to do so, or for business reasons, and it will not fell trees for reasons related only to a customer’s personal needs.
    3. It will not prune or fell a managed tree because it is “too big” or “too tall”. A tree is not dangerous just because a resident may consider it too big for its surroundings.
14. The landlord acknowledged that the property did not meet its lettable standard at the date of sign-up and it undertook some works to the garden in September 2022. It told the resident that it would attend to the overgrown hedges once the bird nesting season was over. This was a reasonable response. It is an offence to damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird. While the bird nesting season is generally considered to last from March to September in any given year, it can extend beyond these months.
15. The landlord accepted that there was an oversight in referring the resident’s concerns about the garden raised in November 2022 to the grounds maintenance team. This delayed works by 2 months which was unsatisfactory. The landlord attended in January 2023 but works could not go ahead as it had discovered asbestos. This is a potentially hazardous substance when disturbed, and the landlord acted in line with the advice on its website and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance by stopping work and arranging for a licensed removal company to safely dispose of the asbestos.
16. When the grounds team attended again in February 2023, they cut back the bushes but said that the trees were at a manageable height. In doing so they followed the landlord’s policy which says that it will only prune a managed tree if it considered it unsafe. While the resident believed that the trees were not at a manageable height, the Ombudsman is not able to make a finding as to whether it was or not. The Ombudsman trusts that the landlord employs suitably qualified and experienced staff or contractors to assess and find whether a tree presented a risk.
17. The landlord agreed that it would periodically inspect the trees to review whether they presented a danger or a health and safety risk, which was reasonable.
18. The landlord assessed that its communication with the resident was lacking and that it did not manage her expectations about what it was required to do in relation to the trees. There was also poor communication between teams which appeared to be due to ineffective information sharing. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) says that failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking proper and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
19. It was positive that the landlord recognised that it should work to improve communication between its departments, and that it would use the resident’s complaint to remind staff of the importance of good communication in delivering effective services.
20. The Ombudsman notes that, although it acknowledged its service failings, the landlord has not offered compensation to the resident. The resident spent time and effort in chasing this matter with the landlord. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure regarding this aspect of the complaint and orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation.
21. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove waste from her garden.

22. There was a delay in the landlord removing debris and waste from the resident’s garden. As noted earlier in this report, some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control as it had found potentially hazardous material in the garden in January 2023, which a licensed contractor would need to remove safely.
23. However, following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident complained that there was still waste and debris in the garden that the landlord had not removed. The Ombudsman considers that, even if overgrown hedges and shrubbery had concealed the waste as the landlord alluded to, it would have been visible after its grounds maintenance team had cut back the undergrowth in February 2023.  It should therefore have raised works to remove it at this time. It did not do this, which was a failing.
24. The landlord did not arrange removal of the waste until after its stage 2 complaint response, in which it acknowledged that it had not removed all the debris in the garden and upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord apologised for this failure in service delivery and committed to improving its services, it did not offer the resident compensation for her inconvenience, and she spent time and effort in chasing this with them. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure and orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it cut back trees in her garden.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it remove waste from her garden.

Orders and recommendations

27. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 which includes:
    1. £80 in compensation for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s service failings regarding the resident’s request that it cut back trees in her garden.
    2. £70 in compensation to recognise the resident’s inconvenience, time and effort because of for the delays in the landlord removing waste from her garden.

The landlord must inform the Ombudsman once it has made this payment.