London Borough of Hillingdon (202423080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423080

London Borough of Hillingdon

30 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about staff conduct.
2. Concerns about the garden and overhanging trees at her property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
A letter from the local Community Health Team, in November 2022, explained the resident’s extensive physical and mental health vulnerabilities to the landlord. These included but were not limited to depressive disorder and other mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, heart and lung disease, arthritis, sciatica and lumbar disc damage.
On 9 June 2024 the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, the resident said:
1. On 7 June 2024, she had been ‘put through’ ‘drama and stress’ trying to speak to a named member of staff who had been dealing with her repairs and had not contacted her as promised. The resident said the member of staff was in the office but would not come to the phone. Another member of staff refused to arrange for the person she wanted to speak to call her back. The resident said the other member of staff spoke over her, which caused her to scream at them. When she called back later her call was answered by the member of staff she wanted to speak to. However, when they recognised her voice they put the phone down on her.
2. The landlord refused to come and see to the garden at her property despite having previously attended a few times. She had also asked for the ‘big trees’ in her garden to be cut down, as they were blocking light and sun, but this too had been refused. The resident said the landlord wanted ‘a disabled sick woman to carry out the works (it was) supposed to carry out.’
On 14 June 2024, the resident complained to the landlord again saying:
1. She had called the Tenancy Management Team Leader twice, as they had an appointment arranged with them that day. Both times the contact centre was unable to put her through.
2. She had asked the landlord to attend to the gardens but was ‘again ignored.’ She had also asked for trees to be cut down as they were blocking out the light but this was ignored and she was told this was her responsibility.
3. The landlord should look at her health records, referring to its behaviour being ‘appalling,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘unprofessional’ and ‘very triggering.’
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. In summary, the landlord said:
1. With regards to staff conduct:
  1. It expected all its staff to conduct themselves in a polite and professional manner and was sorry this was not the resident’s experience when she called on 7 June 2024.
  2. Her concerns would be dealt with under its internal procedures.
2. With regards to the garden and overhanging trees at her property:
  1. It had previously arranged to have the resident’s garden ‘cut back’ as a gesture of goodwill, as it should have been her responsibility.
  2. Its Tenancy Management team had been asked to see if she could be added to a gardening assistance programme as its Maintenance Service could not assist further on this.
  3. Trees were the resident’s responsibility. From the photos provided, the trees appeared to be overhanging from a private garden. The landlord said it had asked its ‘green spaces’ team if they could do an assessment to see if anything could be done.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 July 2024. The resident said she had no light in her garden because of the trees, the garden had not been seen to and she had been told it was ‘down to’ her. The resident said she had been ignored, and all she received from the Tenancy Management Team Leader regarding their non-attendance on 24 June 2024 was a ‘sorry’ with no explanation. The resident said it was ‘stressful’ for her as she had lung and heart disease, was asthmatic and had fibromyalgia. The resident said this had ‘now got to be taken further as it was unacceptable and just making (her) health so much worse’.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. In summary, the landlord said:
1. With regards to staff conduct:
  1. It was sorry to read of the resident’s experience. However, an apology had been offered in its stage 1 response, and the resident advised that the matter would be dealt with internally.
  2. Its Tenancy Management Team Leader had separately apologised for missing the prearranged appointment on 14 June 2024.
2. With regards to the gardens and trees at her property. The trees the resident referred to were in a private garden and so it would not be able to carry out works to them, as this would be a matter for the private homeowner to resolve.

Assessment and findings

Our role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, we consider not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint.
In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Staff conduct

We will not form a view on whether the conduct of the staff members complained about were appropriate. Instead, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
In the case of the call of 7 June 2024. We accept the landlord would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident due to confidentiality reasons. However, we also expect it to conduct a fair and objective investigation and clearly relay its findings to the resident. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy does not exclude complaints about its staff, nor would we expect it to.
In this case the landlord did not explain what evidence it had considered, such as listening to the call recordings (if these were available), nor did it say whether it had spoken to the members of staff in question. Had it have done so it may have provided the resident with a more meaningful apology and reassurance that it had taken her concerns seriously.
With regards to the missed appointment on 14 June 2024. Whilst the Tenancy Management Team Leader did email the resident to apologise for their non-attendance, they did not do so until 24 June 2024, 10 days after the resident had raised concerns about their non-attendance. It is also noted that this email was sent on the same day as the landlord stage 1 response. The delay in the Tenancy Management Team Leader’s response was not reasonable, nor should it have taken a formal complaint for them to apologise to the resident.
The Tenancy Management Team Leader’s email also failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why they did not attend. Instead, they sought to justify their non-attendance by simply saying they were only going to attend ‘in the absence of a Tenancy Management Officer’ for the resident’s address.
As with the call on 7 June 2024, the landlord failed to evidence that it had carried out an adequate investigation into the missed appointment on 14 June 2024. Instead, it simply relied on an apology being sufficient to resolve the complaint.
These failures represent maladministration by the landlord. To put this right, the landlord is to pay the resident £200 compensation. It is also to review its response to this element of the resident’s complaint. This is to ensure that going forward when responding to complaints about staff conduct it provides both a reasonable insight into its investigation and an explanation of any decision made as a result of that investigation.

Concerns about the garden and overhanging trees at her property.

The tenancy terms and conditions state residents must ensure their gardens are kept reasonably tidy by cutting the lawn and trimming hedges and bushes. It also states that residents ‘may find their neighbour serving them’ with a ‘remedial notice’ if a hedge or tree in their garden ‘is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of their property.’
It is not for us to tell the landlord what works it should or should not carry out in the resident’s garden or to the overhanging trees. However, 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 her complaint of 9 June 2024, the resident said the landlord’s ‘Green spaces’ team had refused to look at the garden. She also said it had refused to cut down the ‘big trees’ which she said were blocking the light and sun to her garden.
In accordance with the tenancy terms and conditions, the resident was responsible for the garden. However, given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010, the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard and the landlord’s own Reasonable Adjustment Guidance, to demonstrate:
1. It had taken steps to ensure it understood the needs of the resident.
2. It had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its Tenancy Management team had been made aware of the resident’s situation to see if she could be added to a gardening assistance programme. This request was confirmed in the stage 2 response. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. However, we have seen no evidence of the resident being contacted about this in the time period covered in this report.
With regards to the overhanging trees. On 23 June 2024 and as advised in its stage 1 response, the landlord emailed its Arboricultural Manager to ask if it was possible for the trees to be looked at. The landlord’s email noted the resident had complained that they were ‘very overgrown.’
The Arboricultural Manager responded on 25 June 2024 to advise that as the tree was situated within a private property, the landlord was ‘very limited’ to what work it could carry out. The Arboricultural Manager recommended that the resident or the landlord’s tenancy team discuss the concerns with the tree owner.
Having been given this advice, and as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted the neighbour. However, there is no evidence it did so.
Instead, in its final response, the landlord simply told the resident that as the trees were in a private garden, it would not be able to carry out any works to them as this would be a matter for the owner to resolve.
It is understandable that, without any further explanation, the resident would question why that was the case given the landlord had previously cut the trees back in November 2021.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, its Tree Officer visited the resident’s property in September 2024 and said they could ‘not justify any work’ to the trees at that time. However, this decision appears to have been made solely on the basis that the main tree, which had previously been pruned away, would not form new growth on the bare branches that were closest to the corner of the property.
No mention was made of the upper branches of this tree which appear, from photos provided to us by the landlord, to have extensive foliage resulting in loss of light to the resident’s garden. There was also no mention of the potential impact of the loss of light on the resident’s ‘reasonable enjoyment’ of the property. This is of particular concern given the resident’s known and extensive vulnerabilities
Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made for which the landlord is to pay the resident a further £200. The landlord has also been ordered to:
1. Provide us with evidence of its Tenancy Management team’s contact with the resident regarding a gardening assistance programme. If this has not done so, the landlord is to contact the resident to discuss this with her and to provide us with evidence of its contact within the next 4 weeks.
2. Review its handling of the overhanging trees. This is to include, but is not limited to: why it did not follow the advice of its Arboricultural Manager to contact the neighbour and what consideration it gave to the impact of the loss of light on the resident.

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 concerns about staff conduct.
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 concerns about the garden and overhanging trees at her property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £200 compensation for the failures identified in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. £200 compensation for the failures identified in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the garden and overhanging trees at her property.
  3. 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.
2. Review its response to the resident’s complaints about staff conduct. This is to ensure that going forward when complaints are made about staff members it provides both a reasonable insight into its investigation and an explanation of any decision made as a result of that investigation.
3. To provide us with evidence of its Tenancy Management team’s contact with the resident regarding a gardening assistance programme. If it has not done so, the landlord is to contact the resident to discuss this with her and to provide us with evidence of that contact within the above timescale.
4. Review its handling of the overhanging trees. This is to include, but is not limited to: why it did not follow the advice of its Arboricultural Manager to contact the neighbour and what consideration it gave to the impact of the loss of light on the resident.
5. Confirm compliance with the above orders.