Leicester City Council (202340066)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340066

Leicester City Council

14 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. report of repair to their back garden fence.
2. concerns about the risks posed by trees in their back garden.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 2 May 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord raised a job to repair the fencing in the resident’s back garden.
The landlord raised another job on 5 September 2023 to repair and replace the rear fencing to the property. The landlord cancelled this job, noting it was a duplicate of the job raised on 20 June 2022.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord noted the resident’s complaint was about outstanding repairs to their back garden fence, which they reported when they moved in. The landlord also noted the resident was concerned about nails sticking out of the fence making it unsafe for their children to play out. In its response the landlord:
1. acknowledged the repair to the resident’s fence was first reported in June 2022
2. apologised for the time taken to complete the repair and for any upset caused
3. said it had asked its voids team to arrange a garden clearance
4. said the resident would be contacted separately to arrange a convenient appointment to clear their garden and for the fence repairs to go ahead
The landlord raised a job to clear the resident’s garden on 15 November 2023 and completed the works the following day.
The resident escalated their complaint on 22 November 2023, in which they:
1. confirmed the landlord had removed the rubbish in their garden and had given them an appointment to install the fencing on 7 December 2023. However, no one had contacted them about the burnt trees
2. said the fence could not be installed before the burnt trees were removed or the branches cut. The resident asked the landlord to let them know when they would be removed as they were posing a health and safety hazard
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. In summary the landlord said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in any updates being given to the resident about when they could expect its trees and woodlands team to visit
2. its trees and woodlands team attended on 1 December 2023, ahead of the fencing works as agreed, and completed all necessary works. The fencing was then successfully installed on 7 December 2023
3. it had inspected the fencing and deemed it to be of an acceptable standard and along the original fencing line
4. it had been assured the trees were ‘burnt Leylandii,’ but did not pose a significant hazard or high safety risk
5. it could appreciate the resident may have wanted all the trees removed. However, this was not necessary and no further work would be undertaken
6. it was therefore unable to uphold the complaint
The resident referred their complaint to us on 7 February 2024. The resident said they were ‘constantly worried’ about the health and safety risks the burnt trees posed. They also said their ‘kids and grandkids’ could not use the garden freely for fear the trees may fall down at any point.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes

Response to report of repair to the resident’s back garden fence.

Section 3.11.1 of the tenancy terms and conditions, states the resident ‘must maintain the garden, including trees, hedges, fences, lawns and borders to the satisfaction of the Council.’
We have not seen evidence of when the repair to the resident’s fence was first reported. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response this was in June 2022. As this was only 1 month after the resident’s tenancy commenced it was reasonable for the landlord to take responsibility for the repair.
However, the landlord took no action until the 5 September 2022 when the resident’s Neighbourhood Housing Officer confirmed they had visited the resident’s property. The Neighbourhood Housing Officer’s letter did not include the date they had visited but did confirm a job had been raised to repair and replace the fence panels, as necessary.
There was then an excessive delay in the landlord completing the works, this not being done until 7 December 2023, over a year after the landlord raised the repair. This was a significant amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repair to be completed.
The landlord made no apology in its complaint responses for the excessive delay in it completing the fence repairs. Instead, in its stage 2 response it simply said whilst there were delays in its trees and woodland teams attending, these works were completed on 1 December 2023 and prior to the agreed start date for the fencing, of 7 December 2023.
Given the landlord’s failure to acknowledge how long the resident had actually had to wait for the works to be completed and its failure to apologise for the distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused them, a finding of maladministration has been made.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise for the delay, of more than a year, in the fencing repairs being completed. It has also been ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation. This figure is in line with amounts set out in our Remedies guidance in situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident which the landlord did not fully acknowledge and made no attempt to put right.
As part of their complaint about the fence, the resident also raised concerns with the quality of the work and that they had lost part of their garden.
The landlord’s response to this was reasonable. It evidently took the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord explained its fencing team had put the fence back on the original posts and so the garden was not smaller. It also arranged for a team leader to inspect the work. The team leader noted no issues.
In their contact with us on 28 May 2024, the resident raised concerns about the height of the fence the landlord installed. We have seen no evidence of this issue being raised as part of the complaint considered here and so this has not been investigated as part of this report. Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss their concerns about the height of their fence. Were the resident to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this.

Response to resident’s concerns about the risks posed by trees in their back garden

In line with the tenancy agreement, trees are the resident’s responsibility to maintain. Nevertheless, the landlord would be expected to assess any health and safety risks associated with the trees and to ensure that, where needed, reasonable action is taken to prevent risk.
It is not for us to assess the potential risk posed by the trees in the resident’s garden. It is also not for us to tell the landlord what works it should or should not carry out to those trees. Instead, it is our role to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether its response was fair and reasonable given all the circumstances.
In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by asking its specialist trees and woodland team to inspect the trees, to identify any potential risk and to decide what works, if any, were needed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had been assured by its specialist trees and woodland team that the trees did not pose a significant hazard or high safety risk. It also acknowledged the resident wanted to have all the trees removed but said, as this was not necessary, no further work would be done.
The landlord has provided evidence of the advice referred to in its stage 2 response. This includes:
1. an email on 24 November 2023, in which the trees and woodland team confirmed they had inspected the trees that day, the trees were burnt Leylandii but ‘did not pose a significant hazard or high safety risk’
2. a further email from the trees and woodlands manager on 30 November 2023 confirming the trees ‘posed a low hazard’
Following the landlord’s final response to their complaint, the resident continued to raise concerns about the safety of the trees. Again, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting its trees and woodland team again. In response the trees and woodland team confirmed in an email of 7 May 2024:
1. they completed the removal of several fire damaged trees at the resident’s property on 30 November 2023
2. the remaining trees, although partially damaged by fire were deemed to be in a satisfactory condition and so were retained
3. at the time of the last inspection, at the end of November 2023, there were no signs the remaining trees were structurally unstable
Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff members when determining what work, if any, was needed to resolve the concerns they raised. Given its trees and woodlands team repeatedly confirmed the trees did not pose a significant hazard or risk, it was reasonable for the landlord not to remove them.
There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the risks posed by trees in their back garden.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of repair to their back garden fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the risks posed by trees in their back garden.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the excessive delay in it completing the repair to their back garden fence
2. pay the resident a total of £300 for the distress and inconvenienced caused. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears
3. confirm compliance with the above orders

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss their concerns about the height of the fence it installed in their garden.