LiveWest Homes Limited (202202223)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202223

LiveWest Homes Limited

11 June 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of an overgrown tree and concerns about the suitability of the tree.
2. reports of damage caused to her car from the tree.
3. the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2004. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including respiratory issues, and issues with “holding or grasping”.
The resident complained to the landlord around November 2021 about its maintenance of a tree outside her home. It issued its stage 2 response to this complaint in February 2022. It said it had completed cyclical reviews of the tree in line with its policy and these had made no recommendation that it was too large or needed pruning.
The resident contacted the landlord again in May 2023 to raise a new complaint about damage to her car from the tree. In response the landlord directed her to its complaint response of February 2022.
Following contact from the Ombudsman in September 2024, the landlord agreed to log a new complaint for the resident. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2024. It said:
1. the tree had been regularly surveyed, most recently in September 2024, and it attached a copy of this.
2. the survey was completed by an independent contractor who said the tree was in “a good state”, and it made no recommendations of work.
3. the survey did not indicate the tree was “over large” for the location.
The landlord offered to visit the resident to discuss her concerns. It also said:
1. it would pay £100 so she could arrange for her car to be waxed. It said this would make it easier to remove “sap” from the car.
2. it would pay up to £150 for the resident to purchase an automatic car cover.
3. any claim the resident wanted to make about damage to her car could be pursued through its insurer.
4. it was sorry the resident was previously given conflicting advice about who was responsible for maintaining the tree. It said it had previously apologised for this error.
5. it should have raised the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage, and it apologised for not doing so.
The landlord awarded the resident £400 compensation. This was made up of £300 for its complaint handling failure and £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the incorrect information it provided about who was responsible for maintaining the tree.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She raised concerns about the incorrect planting of the tree, its lack of maintenance and “breach of contract”. She said the level of payment it had offered for an automatic car cover was insufficient.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2024. It said it had reviewed planning and development information relating to the property, the tenancy agreement, and its tree management operational procedure. It said:
1. it had followed its procedure in how it had managed and maintained the tree.
2. it had completed an inspection regime of the tree using appropriately trained individuals, and there was no evidence it had failed to complete any maintenance or remedial work identified by these.
3. honeydew (a sticky secretion) was a natural occurring by-product of the tree, and it had taken a proportionate approach in responding to the resident’s feedback about this.
4. it had reviewed planning information, and the developer of the estate had complied with planning requirements. It said plans specified the type of tree and location and it was considered a suitable tree for the space.
5. it had found no evidence it was in breach of any legislation, and it had complied with the tenancy agreement by keeping the shared area in reasonable repair.
6. it had found no evidence the resident’s driveway was in a poor state of repair or not usable.
The landlord identified that it had provided the resident with conflicting information about whether she could complete work to maintain the tree herself. It increased its award to her to £500. This was made up of:
1. £400 previously awarded at stage 1.
2. £100 for the failings it had identified in its provision of conflicting information.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tree management operational procedure says it should be “reasonable, proportionate, and reasonably practicable” when managing the risk from trees. It says:
1. it will inspect trees every 5 years, with more frequent inspections where appropriate. This is to assess the risk of harm, and complete work required to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
2. where a tree does not pose a significant risk of harm, it will not normally carry out pruning or remove it.
3. honeydew is not controllable by pruning, and cleaning of affected surfaces should be considered routine maintenance.
4. it will not carry out pruning as a way of alleviating problems from honeydew.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that claims for loss or personal injury will be considered through its insurer.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy outlines its aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to acknowledge complaint escalation requests within 5 working days and respond within 7 working days of this. It says, if its investigation will take longer than 20 working days, it will agree this in advance with the resident.

Concerns about the maintenance and suitability of the tree

Maintenance of the tree

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about its maintenance of the tree. The landlord provided comprehensive information in its complaint responses about the procedure it had followed in its management and maintenance of the tree.
The landlord explained the findings of 3 surveys it had completed of the tree over the previous 5 years. It provided her with a copy of its most recent survey. It said this recommended no work to the tree. While the resident said that she wanted an independent survey of the tree to be completed, the landlord had provided information about the independent contractor who had completed the latest survey. It told the resident that this contractor employed appropriately trained staff to complete tree surveys and inspections. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the survey completed by the expert contractor.
Evidence we have seen shows the landlord acted in line with its tree management operational procedure by arranging appropriate surveys of the tree. Its response to the resident’s request that it prune or remove the tree was also in line with this procedure and the findings of the surveys. Its procedure sets out that it will not complete pruning of trees as a way of alleviating problems with honeydew. Overall, we have found that its response to the resident’s concerns was detailed, reasonable and that it acted in line with its procedure.

Suitability of the tree

The landlord also provided a detailed and thorough response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the tree for the location. As well as considering whether the recent surveys had indicated the tree was overly large for its location, it reviewed planning information which set out details of landscaping and tree planting scheme for the estate. It told the resident that the developer had complied with planning requirements, which specified the location and type of tree to be planted. It also provided the resident with copies of the planning documentation. That was reasonable and demonstrated that it was being transparent in explaining how it had reached its conclusions.
Since the stage 2 complaint response the resident has raised concerns with the landlord that the plot size may be smaller than that detailed in plans. It is unclear whether the landlord has responded to this. It is possible the resident’s query would be appropriately addressed by her approaching the local planning authority. However, we have recommended that the landlord consider whether it can provide any further information in response to this concern.
The landlord identified it had provided the resident with incorrect information. It noted it had told her she could cut back the tree herself in August 2024 before retracting this and confirming the tree was for the landlord to maintain. It was appropriate that it apologised to her for the confusion its conflicting advice had caused. It awarded a total of £200 in respect of this – £100 at each stage of its complaints process. These awards were fair and reasonable redress in recognition of the impact of its conflicting communications on the matter.
Overall, we have found that the landlord awarded the resident reasonable redress in respect of concerns she raised about the maintenance and suitability of the tree.

Reports of damage caused to her car

In its complaint responses the landlord directed the resident to submit a claim to its insurer regarding any damage to her car. That was appropriate and in line with its compensation guidance.
The landlord found no failings its maintenance of the tree. However, it looked at practical solutions to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the damage to her car/use of the driveway. That was reasonable and demonstrated that it had fully considered how it could help to resolve her concerns.
It offered to pay £100 for the resident to have her car waxed, and up to £150 towards an automatic car cover. These were reasonable and considered offers in the circumstances. However, the landlord misunderstood the resident’s concerns about its offer to contribute towards a car cover. When it provided its stage 2 complaint response, it noted she had said the automatic car cover was not a “viable solution” due to her shoulder injury. However, her comments about this related to its earlier suggestion that she purchase a manual car cover.
This appears to have been a genuine misunderstanding by the landlord. However, it resulted in its failure to respond to the resident’s questions about whether the amount it had offered was sufficient to buy an automatic car cover. That was a failing. Having offered this solution, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s questions about it. Overall, we found service failure in its failure to respond to this point.

The complaint

The resident complained to the landlord in May 2023 about damage to her car from the tree. The landlord delayed in registering and responding to this complaint. Instead, it directed her to its earlier complaint response. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this in its eventual stage 1 response of October 2024. As noted by the landlord, this delayed the resident being able to escalate her concerns through its complaints process, and to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s award to the resident of £300 was fair and reasonable recognition of the impact of its complaint handling failings. It told the resident that it had since put in place more thorough triaging of complaint requests to prevent similar issues reoccurring. That was positive and appropriate.
The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response within its 7–working day target. However, we acknowledge it provided a detailed and thorough response to the complaint which involved it obtaining and reviewing a range of information. It communicated with the resident during its investigation and advised her of its aim to respond by 15 November 2024, which was 5 weeks after its acknowledgment of her complaint escalation. It provided its response on that date. We have found reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of an overgrown tree and concerns about the suitability of the tree.
2. complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her car.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. provide the resident with a response to her concerns about the amount it offered to pay towards an automatic car cover.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. pay the resident £500 previously awarded for failings in its complaint handling and the conflicting information it provided, if it has not already done so.
2. repeat its offer to pay £100 for the resident to have her car waxed and up to £150 towards an automatic car cover, if this has not already been paid.
3. consider whether it can provide any further information to the resident in response to her concern about the size of the plot in which the tree is planted.