Hyde Housing Association Limited (202314812)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314812

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about trees in neighbouring gardens.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a 1 bedroom bungalow. She has lived there since 2012.
3. The date the resident submitted the complaint is not clear from the correspondence we have seen. However, it is assessed to be from around August 2023. She said she had told the landlord 3 months previously that trees in her neighbour’s gardens were overgrown. The landlord had not taken any action.
4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 24 August 2023. It said it had carried out a tree survey and the trees were not a health and safety concern. Due to budget constraints, such garden works were on hold until April 2024. It would see if it could support the neighbours by providing funding to clear the gardens.
5. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 August 2023. She said the landlord had a duty of care to the neighbours if they could not maintain their gardens.
6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 November 2023. It said it was working with the neighbours to get a suitable arrangement in place. It would also be visiting them regularly to support them.
7. The resident referred her case to us on 6 December 2023. She said the landlord had not provided a timeframe for action to be taken. She told us in March 2024 that the situation had made her unwell. She updated us on 13 June 2024 that the landlord had completed works in the neighbour’s gardens.
8. During her correspondence with us in June 2025, the resident told us new tenants had moved in next door. They were leaving dog waste in the garden and the garden was overgrown.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Within her communication, the resident said the situation had made her unwell. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
10. During her correspondence with us, the resident told us that new tenants had moved in next door. She said they were leaving dog waste in the garden and the garden was overgrown. As this issue was not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, this cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failings have occurred. The resident should raise this matter as a formal complaint with the landlord if she remains dissatisfied with its handling of this issue.

Response to the resident’s concerns about trees in neighbouring gardens

11. It is not in dispute that residents are responsible for the maintenance of their private gardens. This is reflected in the landlord’s information on its website about repair responsibilities. Although we have not seen the tenancy information in respect of the neighbours, we can reasonably conclude from the landlord’s correspondence, that both parties are tenants of the landlord.
12. Following the resident raising concerns in May 2023, the landlord arranged a survey of the trees. This was carried out on 27 June 2023. This found there were no signs of defects with the trees. One was growing over into the resident’s garden which made a shadow in the middle of the day.
13. The resident made a complaint in August 2023 about the landlord’s lack of action in respect of the trees. We have seen internal correspondence from the landlord between its departments to show the action it had taken. Its records show it visited both neighbours and sent them letters about the gardens. The landlord discovered one neighbour had been in hospital, so it was looking at options to support them with the garden going forward. It would visit the other neighbour again as they had not replied.
14. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 24 August 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It had carried out a tree survey. This had found that although the trees were overgrown, they did not cause a health and safety issue.
    2. Due to budget constraints, it was only cutting back trees that were dead, diseased, or were a health and safety concern. All other tree work was on hold until April 2024.
    3. The gardens were the neighbour’s responsibility to maintain. However, it was aware the gardens could not be maintained by the neighbours. As such, it was looking to see if it could support them by providing funding to clear the gardens.
    4. It concluded, there had been no failure in its service.
15. Within this response the landlord demonstrated it had investigated the resident’s concerns. It sought the advice of a specialist contactor and it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the finding of this, namely that there was no health and safety concerns. The landlord explained the estimated timeframe for the work to address the overgrown trees and the reasons for the delay for the works to take place. It demonstrated it had considered the neighbour’s vulnerability and was taking steps to support them. This was in line with its vulnerability policy, which says the landlord can consider supporting vulnerable resident’s with matters which are a resident’s responsibility.
16. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 August 2023. She said the landlord had a duty of care to the neighbours if they could not maintain their gardens. She said the matter had been unresolved since 23 May 2023.
17. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 23 November 2023. It acknowledge the situation had caused frustration to the resident. However, it assessed it had not failed in its service. It said it had been in contact with the neighbours and was working with them to get a suitable arrangement in place. It confirmed it would also be visiting them regularly to support them. Due to data protection, it said it could not inform the resident of further developments.
18. This response demonstrated the landlord had continued to take the issue seriously. Although it was not responsible for the upkeep of the neighbour’s private gardens, it had considered the vulnerability of both neighbours and had taken steps to support them, in line with its vulnerability policy.
19. The evidence shows since the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident told us the landlord completed work to the gardens by June 2024. This was in line with the timeframe stated in the stage 1 response.
20. In summary, our investigation has identified that the landlord responded reasonably to the complaint in the following ways:
    1. In response to the resident’s concern, it instructed an inspection by a specialist contractor.
    2. It relied on the findings of the specialist contractor, that the trees were not a health and safety concern.
    3. It managed the resident’s expectations and explained the estimated timeframe for the work and the reasons why this would not take place before April 2024.
    4. It recognised the vulnerabilities of the neighbours. It explained it was working to support them in maintaining their gardens. This was in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy.
    5. It subsequently undertook work to the gardens in line with the timeframe provided.
21. Given the findings above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about trees in neighbouring gardens.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. Following this, it aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days.
23. The date the resident submitted her complaint is not clear from the correspondence we have seen. However, this was around August 2023. The landlord responded to this at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 24 August 2023.
24. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 August 2023. The landlord failed to respond and so the resident contacted us on 6 November 2023 for assistance. Following our involvement, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and aimed to respond at stage 2 by 27 November 2023.
25. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 23 November 2023. Although this was within the timeframe it had told the resident, this was around 3 months after her escalation request. This was significantly outside of its stated response timeframe. This delay impacted the resident’s ability to refer her complaint to us for investigation and consequently unnecessarily lengthened the time taken to achieve a resolution to her complaint.
26. The landlord failed to explain why it had not escalated the complaint initially. It also failed to apologise or acknowledge that the stage 2 response had been delayed. It offered no redress for the effect of this on the resident. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
27. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures, we have ordered compensation of £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about trees in neighbouring gardens.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay £150 compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handing failures.