A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202325318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325318

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Communal gardening.
   2. The resident’s concerns about trees blocking light to his property. 
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2013. The property is a ground floor flat.
4. In December 2022, the resident reported 2 large trees in the communal garden were blocking light to his property. He asked for these to be cut back. The landlord visited the block and noted the trees blocked some light at the back of the building, but this would not be enough to carry out any additional works.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 30 July 2023. He said his front room and kitchen were dark because of overgrown trees blocking light to his property. He explained that he had to put lights on during the day; which meant his electricity bill was high. The following month, he said the gardeners were often not turning up and when they did, they were not carrying out works properly. He reported shrubs were overgrown.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 response, sent on 4 September 2023, said the complaint was not upheld because there had been no service failure. It advised the gardening contractor had confirmed no visits had been missed and it had recently inspected the grounds and concluded all tasks were being carried out as per the specification. It told him it carried out tree surveys every 3 years, with the most recent being done in July 2022, and subsequent works completed in April 2023.
7. Two days later, the resident replied that he was not happy with the complaint outcome. He said this was because the landlord had not addressed the issue of the trees blocking light to his living room. He reported there were still overgrown shrubs. This was treated as a request to escalate the complaint.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. This said it agreed with the stage 1 decision, as it had followed its policies and there had been no service failure. It told him the trees were healthy and safe, therefore, it would not reduce the height of these, or cut them down.
9. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint the same month. He said the landlord had told him the gardening had been done, but this was not true. He explained the trees had grown too big and blocked light coming in to his home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has said the lack of light coming in to his property has negatively affected his and his family’s mental health. We do not doubt his comments; however, we cannot make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his family’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Communal gardening

11. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the communal gardens in line with its environmental services policy. This said it would provide fortnightly communal gardening services.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response said its contractor had confirmed no gardening visits had been missed, but the resident disputes this. Despite us asking the landlord to provide logs of communal gardening visits, it has not done so. This is a concern as the landlord should have records of when visits were carried out, so it can properly monitor its contractors performance, as is committed in its environmental services policy.
13. It is not enough that the landlord relies on the contractors word that it attended, it should have a process in place for this to be formally recorded. This is important as residents are paying for this service, via their service charge and the landlord should be able to evidence when visits are made to justify the charges. The landlord has been unable to do that in this case and this amounts to maladministration. This has caused the resident to lose trust in the landlord.
14. We have made an order for the landlord to review its process for recording communal gardening visits, to ensure it can provide evidence of visits that have taken place to residents and us.
15. When the resident raised concerns about the quality of the gardening works as part of his stage 1 and 2 complaints, the landlord visited to complete spot checks. This was sensible to allow it to investigate his concerns and showed it was taking this seriously. As well as reacting to any concerns about the gardening service, the landlord should also be proactively monitoring this. This is to ensure the service being provided is in line with the specification and to ensure residents are receiving the service they are paying for.
16. The landlord’s environmental services policy said that it would carry out regular estate inspections. This would be a sensible way for it to proactively monitor the gardening service. In this case, we have seen no evidence of any estate inspections being carried out for the resident’s block and gardens over the period of our investigation (July 2022 to October 2023). This was not in line with its commitment to carry out regular inspections.
17. The only records of inspections during the period of our investigation, were the ones completed reactively following the resident’s complaints. It is unfair of landlords to expect residents to continually raise issues with the quality of communal services, and should be proactively monitoring these so it can identify any potential issues. The landlord’s failure to do that in this case amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord did not care about the condition of the garden. We have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident confirming how often it will carry out estate inspections of the block and gardens, and when the next one will take place.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said:
    1. Its grounds specification restricted hedge and shrub cutting during the spring and summer months, to allow nesting and insect population to flourish.
    2. During this time, it focused more on lawns, litter picking and weed treatment.
    3. As the seasons changed, it would focus on cutting back shrubs, as well as leaf collection.
19. This was a reasonable explanation of why it carried out different works at different times. While reasonable, the landlord only provided this information in response to the resident’s complaint. It would have been helpful if the landlord proactively shared the specification with residents so they were aware of what works would be carried out when. This would help them to understand any limitations on the landlord and could prevent complaints about the service. We have made an order for the landlord to share the gardening service specification with the resident, and all other residents who contribute towards the communal gardening service charge.
20. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal gardening. While it reacted appropriately to the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence it was proactively managing this service, in line with its environmental services policy. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £300 compensation.

Trees blocking light to the resident’s property

21. The landlord is responsible for maintaining trees in communal areas in line with its environmental services policy. This said it would carry out tree surveys every 2 years and works would be prioritised depending on their urgency. 
22. The landlord’s environmental services policy said that trees would not be removed unnecessarily. It recognised that trees could sometimes obscure daylight from properties, but said it was not obliged to carry out works for this reason alone. When the resident asked for the trees to be cut back because they were blocking light coming in to his property, the landlord declined. It said the trees were healthy and safe, and so it would not carry out works. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its environmental services policy.
23. The resident has said his electricity bill is high because he has to have lights on all day, as the trees stop natural light coming in. He has asked for compensation for the increased electricity bills. As we have concluded there has been no service failure in the landlord’s decision not to cut back the trees, we would not order compensation for increased energy costs. This is because, any increase in costs, is not as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
24. When the resident first raised this issue in December 2022, the landlord inspected the trees the same month. It also carried out a second inspection in September 2023, after he asked to escalate his complaint. These inspections were in addition to the 2 yearly surveys that it committed to carry out in its environmental services policy. It was sensible of the landlord to carry out these additional inspections, so it could properly investigate the resident’s concerns.
25. Following the first inspection in December 2022, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident the outcome or explained why it would not be completing any works to the trees. It was only after he raised a complaint several months later, that it told him why it would not be cutting these back.
26. While this did not affect the outcome, the lack of communication amounts to service failure and meant the resident was uncertain on what was happening. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this communication failure, and pay him £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
27. When the resident raised this concern again in October 2023, after the stage 2 response had been sent, the landlord replied 3 working days later and reconfirmed why it would not be carrying out any works. This was in line with its environmental services policy, which said it would respond to enquiries about these issues within 5 working days.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The resident made his complaint on 30 July 2023, but the landlord did not log this until 15 working days later, on 18 August 2023. This only happened because the resident chased this up on 17 August 2023. This delay amounts to service failure and we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
29. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 4 September 2023, which was 10 working days after it had logged this. This was in line with the 10 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. It responded to the stage 2 complaint in 21 working days, which was over the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. As this was only 1 working day over the committed timescale, this was a minor delay. The landlord apologised for this in the final response, therefore, this was not a failure.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal gardening.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
       1. Concerns about trees blocking light to his property.
       2. Formal complaint.

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident confirming how often it will carry out estate inspections of the block and gardens, and when the next one will take place.
    2. Shared the gardening service specification with the resident, and all other residents who contribute towards the communal gardening service charge. 
    3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of communal gardening, the communication failure in its handling of his concerns about trees blocking light to his property and his formal complaint.
    4. Paid the resident £425 compensation, made up of:
       1. £300 for its handling of communal gardening.
       2. £75 for the communication failure in its handling of his concerns about trees blocking light to his property.
       3. £50 for its complaint handling.
32. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review its process for recording communal gardening visits, to ensure it can provide evidence of visits that have taken place to residents and us. Evidence of compliance to be provided within 8 weeks.