Manchester City Council (202330588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330588

Manchester City Council

25 November 2024

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 a tree maintenance request.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the property. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority.
4. On 2 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported concerns with the large tree in the rear of his garden. He said he believed it was causing issues with the structure of his property and the tree was encroaching on neighbouring gardens. The landlord responded on 11 August 2022 and said it would arrange an inspection for the tree. It has told this Service that tree maintenance to residents is provided by a different department at the local authority.
5. The local authority’s arboriculture team inspected the tree on 21 April 2023. It said, “the tree was in good condition with no obvious defects”.
6. The resident said he raised a complaint to the landlord on 29 May 2023, but the landlord did not respond. The resident contacted this Service in November 2023. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
7. On 1 March 2024, on behalf of the landlord a structural engineer inspected the tree and the resident’s property. No evidence was found that the tree had caused any damage to the property.
8. On the 4 April 2024, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said it was unable to locate the resident’s original complaint. The landlord said the structural engineer report found the tree was not causing damage to the property. Due to this, it found no evidence to support the resident’s complaint and it was not upheld.
9. The resident has told this Service he is unhappy with how the landlord has handled the maintenance of the tree. The resident would like the tree to be removed.
10. The resident has told this Service that he contacted the landlord on 9 June 2024 to ask it to maintain the tree whilst awaiting the outcome of this complaint. He said the landlord attended on 2 October 2024 and pruned the tree.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
12. In his complaint the resident said he was unhappy with the decision to not cut down the tree. The landlord is a local authority.
13. Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
14. The maintenance and decision making around the care and status of tree’s is a matter for the local authority’s arboriculture team within its parks, leisure and the arts department. Therefore, the Housing Ombudsman has no power to investigate decision making regards the tree being removed or its maintenance as part of this of complaint.
15. This aspect of the resident’s complaint may therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is the appropriate body to consider complaints about a local council. The resident may wish to pursue his complaint with the LGSCO.
16. This assessment will consider whether the landlord has responded fairly and appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s handling of a tree maintenance request

17. On 2 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a large tree in the rear of his garden. He said the tree was encroaching on neighbouring gardens. The resident also said he thought the roots of the tree were causing issues with his kitchen flooring and draining at the property. He said he would like the tree to be cut down.
18. The landlord responded to the resident on 11 August 2022. This was around 7 working days after the resident had reported the issue. The landlord said it would arrange an inspection of the tree by the local authority.
19. The landlord has told the Ombudsman:
    1. It does not provide a service to maintain trees.
    2. It has a service level agreement in place to submit referrals to the relevant local authority department on behalf of its residents.
    3. The maintenance of trees is a ‘local government service and not a housing service’.
    4. Inspections and any work required is determined directly by the local authority.
20. The local authority’s tree management policy says, “the management of trees in gardens is the responsibility of the property or building owner.” Based on the policy, maintenance of the tree was the responsibility of the local authority as the building owner.
21. An inspection on 21 April 2023 was undertaken by a tree surgeon from the local authority’s arboriculture team. This was around 8 months after the resident had raised his concerns. It was noted at the inspection:
    1. “The tree was in good condition with no obvious defects”.
    2. “Lateral branches growing over neighbouring gardens hung quite low”.
    3. “Ivy growing up the trunk prevented a detailed inspection of the trunk and buttress roots”.
    4. The recommended action was to continue to prune the tree.
22. The resident has told this Service he raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 May 2023. The evidence provided shows the landlord did not respond to the complaint at that time. It was also unable to locate a copy of the complaint when the resident chased a response.
23. The evidence provided shows the landlord did a “condition survey” and report of the resident’s property and garden on 11 September 2023. The report said there was an issue with ivy growing up the tree. It recommended a tree surgeon “assess the current conditions of the tree and provide recommendations”. As “tree roots can significantly impact properties, both positively and negatively.”
24. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that a landlord “must carry out certain repairs” which “includes maintaining the exterior and structure of the rental property”.
25. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to undertake a condition survey, in response to the resident’s concerns as part of its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, the delay of around 12 months from the resident raising his concerns to the landlord carrying out investigative works was unexplained. It is reasonable to conclude the delay was avoidable. This delay will have caused inconvenience to the resident.
26. On 4 April 2024, the landlord first responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said the resident had requested his complaint be taken to stage 2. This was despite the landlord not issuing a response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process.
27. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the following:
    1. The resident had requested the landlord “take the tree down to stump level and thereafter stop further growth by chemical means via a tree surgeon”.
    2. The landlord found that it had “acted appropriately” in responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the tree.
    3. The landlord said the inspection by the local authority had recommended to prune the tree. It said the structural condition survey it completed found “no obvious signs of structural distress” by the tree to the property.
    4. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said it could not find any evidence to support it.
28. The landlord has told this Service “unless the tree is dead, diseased or considered dangerous” the local authority procedure is to maintain trees instead of removing them.
29. The resident has told this Service that he contacted the landlord on 9 June 2024 to ask it to prune the tree whilst awaiting the outcome of this complaint. He said the landlord attended on 2 October 2024 and pruned the tree. He said the landlord did not say when they would next attend to maintain the tree or whether he was required to raise it as a new repair.
30. The evidence shows the landlord reported the resident’s concerns to the local authority who completed an inspection. It also shows the landlord commissioned its own “condition survey” report. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take in respect to its service level agreement with other local authority departments, and to make reasonable enquiries as to whether the tree posed any risk to the resident’s property. However, the landlord’s complaint response failed to acknowledge the length of time it took to complete the condition survey report and respond to the resident. This was unreasonable given the prolonged delay in this case.
31. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
32. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns of the tree and said it would arrange an inspection. The landlord followed its policy referring to the local authority which has the responsibility to maintain the tree at the resident’s property. The landlord’s actions and decision making in both these instances were appropriate in accordance with its policy and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
33. However, there was a substantial delay from the resident raising his concerns of property damage to the landlord undertaking a survey of the property and garden. The delay was not acknowledged or explained by the landlord and unreasonable in its length. This, together with the delay to achieve resolution will have caused distress to the resident.
34. In summary, the delay in dealing with the resident’s concerns regarding the tree was prolonged and avoidable. These failures amount to maladministration and an order for compensation will be made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

35. The resident maintains he told the landlord he raised his complaint on 29 May 2023. He said this was raised via an online form to the landlord. This Service has not been provided with any evidence from the landlord to prove or disprove this.
36. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 November 2023. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
37. This Service wrote to the landlord again on 26 March 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
38. The landlord has told this Service that it “missed the stage 1 response” for the resident. It subsequently escalated the case on the resident’s request and replied to stage 2 of its internal complaints process.
39. On 4 April 2024 the landlord issued the stage 2 response. This was the first official response the resident had received from the landlord to his complaint. This was around 11 months after the resident said he first raised his complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. From the date the resident said he raised the complaint, to receiving his stage 2 response, there was a delay of around 10 months. There was a delay of around 3 months from when the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to reply to the resident’s complaint. Both response times were significantly outside the timescales provided by its complaints policy. This delay will have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
40. In its response at stage 2 the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. This, and the delay in responding was inappropriate of the landlord.
41. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
42. In summary, there was an unreasonable long delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. When the landlord did respond, it failed to acknowledge the delay in dealing with the complaint. Furthermore, by responding at stage 2 in the first instance, the landlord denied the resident an opportunity for review as part of its complaints process and the opportunity for the complaint to be resolved sooner than materialised. These failures amount to maladministration and an order of compensation will be made below.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a tree maintenance request.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

45. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £550 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for the landlord’s handling of a tree maintenance request.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
47. Within 4 weeks the landlord should clarify by acting as a liaison point between other local authority departments as to how and when future maintenance of the tree can be reported and will be conducted.
48. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance on the above orders within 4 weeks.