Places for People Group Limited (202217505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217505

Places for People Group Limited

26 March 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 communal grounds maintenance.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house and is part of a wider estate managed by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
4. On 9 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the height of trees on the estate. They said the trees were blocking natural light into their home. This meant they were having to turn their lights on more than should have been necessary. They advised they had been trying to get this resolved throughout summer.
5. On 7 November 2022 the resident told this Service they had tried to make a formal complaint to the landlord but had not been successful. We wrote to the landlord the same day to advise the resident wished to complain about its handling of communal grounds maintenance and that there were overgrown trees blocking out the resident’s light. We asked the landlord to investigate and issue a stage 1 response. 
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023. It said:
   1. It had identified emergency works were required to clear trees that were covering a street light and it would carry this out as soon as possible. It would survey the remaining trees during the year. It would identify any required remedial works when carrying out the survey.
   2. It would raise a works order to re-paint the white lines in the car park. It would complete the work in due course.
   3. It would communicate the resident’s concerns about communal landscaping to the relevant team. This would ensure it maintained all areas on each visit.
   4. It would arrange for identified waste to be removed from the estate. It had also advised the resident how to report any future fly tipping.
   5. It had reported a broken streetlight to the local authority on the resident’s behalf. The local authority had advised the streetlight had been repaired. It had told the resident how they could report any future issues directly to the local authority.
   6. It apologised for not having responded to this Service’s first contact of 7 November 2022.
   7. It offered £50, comprising of £25 compensation and £25 as an apology for the lack of communication.
   8. It would ensure that it completed the outstanding works.
7. On 25 May 2023 the resident contacted this Service to advise that they wanted to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. This was because the landlord had not carried out the actions it had said it would do. We wrote to the landlord the same day to ask it to escalate the complaint and issue a stage 2 response.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 July 2023. It said it had identified a service failure as it had taken longer than it should have done to resolve the resident’s issues. It had also not delivered on the promises it had made at stage 1. It explained:
   1. It had carried out emergency works to clear the street light. It had surveyed the overgrown trees. It had determined it should cut these back and manage them through its tree team. It would be unable to carry out the works until October 2023 due to bird nesting season.
   2. It had arranged to re-paint the lines in the carpark on 25 July 2023.
   3. It had audited the communal landscaping and found that the grounds were now well maintained. It advised the area did need leaf blowing and a litter pick which it was due to complete by mid-July 2023.
   4. It had fed back to the relevant teams about the importance of following up on a complaint and the impact on the resident. It apologised that it had taken several attempts to resolve the resident’s issues.
   5. It offered £100 compensation as an apology for the prolonged complaint and the lack of resolutions previously.
9. On 23 February 2024 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint. They said they were unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of communal grounds maintenance

10. This Service spoke to the resident on 10 March 2025. They explained the only outstanding matter was the overgrown trees around the estate. For this reason, the investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the trees.
11. The landlord’s Estate Management Policy confirms it will maintain all landscaped areas.
12. The landlord was, or ought to have been, aware of the resident’s concerns about the trees following their email of 9 September 2022. It does not appear that the landlord took any action until the resident contacted it again on 17 October 2022 to chase a response to their previous email. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay. This was not reasonable.
13. The landlord emailed the resident the next day (18 October 2022) to say a Contracts Manager would contact them to arrange a suitable time to visit. There is no evidence that this took place. This was not reasonable.
14. There is evidence that the landlord visited the estate on 18 October 2022 and took some photographs of the trees. However, there is no evidence that it took any further action following this visit. This was not reasonable.
15. Following the landlord logging the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it arranged to visit the estate and assess whether any of the trees posed a health and safety risk. This visit took place on, or around, 6 January 2023 and determined the only immediate works required were to clear the covered streetlight. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to have taken.
16. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain in its stage 1 response that it was due to survey the remaining trees that year. It was also reasonable for it to advise that it would carry out any remedial actions identified by the survey.
17. While the landlord’s stage 2 response states that it had carried out the tree survey it has not provided this Service with any relevant information. It is therefore not possible for us to determine when the survey took place, whether there was any delay from when it was originally planned, what was surveyed, or what findings were reached. Given this lack of information, there is no basis on which we can reasonably conclude that the landlord acted reasonably in carrying out any survey or that its proposed actions were in line with any findings.
18. At the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response it was reasonable for it to have advised that it could not cut back any trees until the bird nesting season had ended. However, as the Ombudsman has no information about when the landlord decided it would cut back the trees it is not possible to conclude that the landlord had been unable to act any sooner.
19. Following its stage 2 response, there is no evidence the landlord carried out any tree works until August 2024. The resident has confirmed that the landlord did cut back some trees near the carpark but did not cut back the trees outside the front of their property. They have also advised that the landlord did not cut back other large trees on the estate. The landlord has not provided any evidence to explain why it only cut some trees back. It has also not provided any evidence to demonstrate that there is a maintenance plan in place for any of the trees on the estate.
20. Having considered all circumstances of the case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal grounds maintenance. This is because there is a lack of evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude the landlord had taken all reasonable and/or appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns about the height of the trees on the estate.
21. The landlord offered £100 compensation in its stage 2 response. It is not clear whether this was in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1. In any event, the Ombudsman does not consider the offered amount was sufficient redress for the landlord’s failings. This is because the landlord had not appropriately identified or addressed all its failings before making the compensation offer.
22. The resident’s contact with both the landlord and this Service has explained that the lack of natural light has impacted on their mental wellbeing. They have stated that they have seasonal affective disorder which has been impacted by the trees blocking the light. They have also advised that they have had increased electricity costs due to the need to use their lights more than should be necessary.
23. Given the length of time this matter has been ongoing and the described impact on the resident, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay £300 compensation in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a service failure that has resulted in an impact on a resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. It would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
    2. It would issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.
    3. It would issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request.
    4. If necessary, it could extend the response timeframe at stage 1 by 10 working days and at stage 2 by 20 working days. It would contact the resident to discuss and explain any need to extend the required time and confirm this in writing.
25. The landlord should have identified and handled the resident’s email of 9 September 2022 as a formal complaint. This would have been in line with the definition of a complaint given in its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (as was in force at the time of the complaint). It was not appropriate for it to have treated this email as an enquiry.
26. The landlord did not log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint until 14 December 2022. This was 28 working days after we had written to it on 7 November 2022. The landlord did not provide any clear explanation for this delay. It appears it only took action after this Service had contacted it again on 8 December 2022 to chase the stage 1 response. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 43 working days after this Service’s initial contact. This was also 15 working days after the date of its acknowledgement. Both time periods were outside of its stated policy and were not appropriate.
28. On 20 December 2022 the landlord told us it had agreed an extension with the resident. There is no evidence of this agreement or that it had written to the resident to confirm the extension. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation within 1 working day. This was appropriate. However, it is concerning that the landlord advised it would respond by 30 June 2023 which it said was 20 working days from 26 May 2023. This is not correct and 30 June 2023 would have been 25 working days.
30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 45 working days after it had received the resident’s stage 2 escalation. While there was evidence of contact between the landlord and the resident during this period, there is no indication that the resident agreed to any extension. The resident also contacted this Service on 6 July 2023 to advise the landlord had not met its stated deadline of 30 June 2023 and to ask that we assist. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its policy and were not appropriate.
31. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response for failing to respond to our first contact of 7 November 2022. This was reasonable. However, it failed to identify or address any of the other failures described above. This was not appropriate.
32. Overall, it was necessary for the resident to chase the landlord on a number of occasions, both directly and with the assistance of this Service, to get a complaint logged and responses issued. On this basis, and for the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
33. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failures in complaint handling. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations like this where there has been no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal grounds maintenance.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

36. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Carry out a survey of all the trees it is responsible for maintaining within the resident’s estate. This survey should, as a minimum, assess whether each tree should be cut back and, if so, to what extent. It should also identify any other remedial actions that would be appropriate to carry out.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £400, this comprises of:
       1. £300 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the communal grounds maintenance.
       2. £100 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
    4. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
37. The landlord must within 56 days of the date of this determination carry out any actions identified by its tree survey. If it is unable to do so it must create and maintain clear records detailing why it has been unable to carry out the works and what steps it has taken to resolve or mitigate any obstacles. If it is prevented from carrying out the works due to the time of year (for example, bird nesting season) it must identify the earliest opportunity it can carry out the works and demonstrate it has arranged for the works to take place at that time.