Together Housing Association Limited (202308783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308783

Together Housing Association Limited

16 December 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 reports of issues with 2 trees in the resident’s front garden.
2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived at the property with his wife and children since July 1998. The landlord is a housing association, and the property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. There is no record of any vulnerable individuals in the household.
4. On 25 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to remove 2 trees at the front of his property. He stated that the trees had grown too large and were blocking natural light. He felt that the trees should either be removed or pruned to increase light into the house. The landlord responded the following day advising that it would not complete any work on the trees. It stated that trees have positive benefits for the community including:
   1. production of oxygen and reduction in particulates
   2. providing wildlife habitats for a range of species.
5. It confirmed that it did not complete work to trees that were:
   1. Blocking natural light (unless there is structural damage)
   2. Leaves falling from trees
6. The resident made a complaint on 28 May 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He explained that he believed this decision was in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the property being fit for habitation. A stage 1 acknowledgement email was sent to the resident on 30 May 2023, confirming that a formal stage 1 acknowledgement letter would be sent within 5 working days.
7. On 11 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident noting his dissatisfaction and confirmed that the complaint was excluded from its complaint process. It reiterated that completing work to healthy trees was not its policy and it would only do so if subject to a court order. It advised the resident that he had the right to contact the Ombudsman, and to contact the local council if he wished to proceed with mediation.
8. The resident contacted this Service in July 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to refuse to cut the tree back or remove it, and to reject his complaint. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communication of 11 June 2023 as its final complaint response in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman.
9. A tree survey was carried out on 23 April 2024 which found the following:
   1. Both sycamore trees were healthy.
   2. There was a possible cavity where the two stems joined, extending down into the root buttress, lower stem area – this was the only potential hazard present.
   3. The trees had not been surveyed by a tree specialist such as an arboriculturist, however the surveyor believed that even if they had, the recommendation would have been to monitor the trees.
   4. The surveyor recommended returning in autumn 2024 to reinspect the trees.
   5. Tree management options including height reduction were also recommended.
   6. Reducing tree height was not always considered a good tree management option and would involve a future maintenance program of works.
10. On 26 September 2024 an arboriculturist completed a survey of the trees at the landlord’s request. It recommended pruning to 3 trees to provide a 2-meter clearance from the property, provide additional highway clearance, and increase light to the property. It classed the works as medium priority and recommended that the work was completed within 6 months.

Assessment and findings

Tree works

11. The landlord’s tree policy states that it will only remove trees in specific circumstances including the tree being dead or dying, causing a health and safety risk such as subsidence, or to benefit the growth of better adjacent trees.
12. It will complete pruning to remove structural defects and dangerous branches, to keep trees to a suitable size for the place where they are growing, improve the health of the tree or to maintain statutory distances over highways and pavements.
13. In his correspondence with the landlord the resident referred to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) as he believed that the property was unfit for habitation because of a defect relating to natural lighting. The LTA 1985 s 10(1) states that a home is “unfit for human habitation if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition”. This Service does not dispute the resident’s view that the trees were blocking light from the property, and that he may have been required to put indoor lights on more often as a result. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided how much of an impact the trees are having on the light inside the property or if any additional cost may have been incurred by the resident. There is no evidence that it was not suitable for occupation.
14. The survey in April 2024 was completed from ground level outside the property. The surveyor did not enter the property as the resident was not at home. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord has visited the property to gauge the everyday impact on the resident. The landlord should have visited the property to fully understand the impact that the trees were having on the resident. While this may not have changed the eventual outcome or the actions it took, it would have demonstrated to the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously.
15. The follow up survey in September 2024 was completed by an external arboriculture specialist. In this survey, it was found that some corrective pruning would improve conditions for the resident and minimise any disruption to the highway. The landlord has informed this Service that it plans to complete these works by the end of March 2025.
16. This Service finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove trees. While the landlord was entitled to make the decision not to remove the trees in line with its policy, it did not fully examine the impact on the resident as there is no evidence that it assessed the property internally. It was also 11 months between the resident reporting the reduced light into the property and the first survey being completed. Even though the outcome may have been the same, the landlord should have arranged a survey sooner. It is positive that the landlord kept to its plan to reassess the trees and referred to an external specialist. It has also scheduled corrective works which will improve the situation for the resident.

Complaint handling

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaints policy must set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint and these circumstances must be fair and reasonable to residents. Acceptable exclusions include:
    1. The issues giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
    2. Legal proceedings have started.
    3. Matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
18. At the time of the complaint, compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. At the time of this report, it is a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code. The landlord has made this Service aware that if the same complaint was made now, it would proceed with the complaint as it would not be classed as an acceptable exclusion in the Code.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that it would not accept a complaint in situations including (but not limited to):
    1. Where the complaint is about a service not provided by the landlord.
    2. The complaint is about a policy that has been approved by the board, unless it is about a failure to comply with the policy.
20. The landlord informed the resident that it would not accept his complaint as removing trees was not a service that it provided. It also stated that its decision not to complete work on a healthy tree was in line with its policy. Positively, it gave the resident the option to approach the local council for support with mediation and advised him of his right to contact the Ombudsman.
21. Following the resident’s complaint to this Service, the landlord indicated that it would open the complaint if instructed to in line with the Code. It was ultimately decided that we had sufficient information to investigate without the requirement to open a new complaint.
22. While we recognise that the resident is unhappy that his complaint was not proceeded with, the nature of his complaint was that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to complete work on the trees. This would fall under the definition of being related to a policy which had been approved by the board and was an acceptable exclusion in the complaints policy.
23. Section 2.4 of the Code states “If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman”. The landlord complied with this in its original response to the resident.
24. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It followed its policy which was compliant with the Code which was in place at the time, even though it was not a mandatory requirement. Further, it has demonstrated that it has taken learning from this case and has made improvements to its policy.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of issues with trees.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

27. Within 5 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £50 in recognition of its failure to fully investigate the impact of the trees on the resident’s living conditions. This should be paid directly to the resident, unless he requests for it to be paid towards his rent account.

Recommendations

28. The landlord should ensure it communicates clearly with the resident regarding completion of future tree pruning, including if there are any delays.