Torus62 Limited (202314751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314751

Torus62 Limited

10 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 the resident’s concerns about a tree in a neighbouring property.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 26 March 2012. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bed semi-detached house and the resident lives with her partner and 2 children. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
3. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2022 with concerns about a tree in a neighbouring property. The landlord undertook an inspection of the tree on 5 May 2022 following which it recommended the removal of the tree. A tree surgeon attended to remove the tree on 6 September 2022; however, the resident was not in, and therefore the appointment did not go ahead.
4. On 28 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it no longer owned the property where the tree was and therefore, the tree was now the responsibility of the owner of the property.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 31 January 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord had assessed the tree as dangerous and confirmed it required removing but had since said it was not its responsibility. The resident asked why the landlord had arranged the appointment for its removal in the first place.
   2. She had sent follow on emails to the landlord but had received no response.
   3. She asked for the tree to be trimmed as she was concerned about its safety and confirmed she had spoken to a tree surgeon who had said trimming the tree on one side only would make it unstable.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. To investigate the ongoing concerns, the landlord confirmed its greenspace manager had attended to inspect the tree. The landlord said the advice previously given was incorrect as the tree was in fact on private property.
   2. It confirmed there was no legal protection from a tree blocking light or with regards to debris from it falling into the resident’s garden.
   3. The landlord said its legal team would contact the neighbour to remind them of their responsibility for tree.
7. The resident contacted her local MP for help on 7 March 2023. The resident said the landlord had confirmed the tree was dangerous and had spoken to the neighbour and agreed to remove the tree if could find funding.
8. A further inspection of the tree took place on 15 March 2023. The log of that visit recommends the removal of the tree as it had damaged the fence and had multiple bulges in it.
9. The local MP contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 when it expressed concerns about the tree on behalf of the resident.
10. The resident contacted the landlord again 30 May 2023 following which it undertook a visit to the property on 6 June 2023. During that visit, the landlord recommended the resident speak to the neighbour to see if she could find a solution. It informed the resident if the neighbour did not cooperate, it would seek intervention from its legal team.
11. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 12 September 2023. The landlord provided its response on 10 October 2023. The response noted that it had offered to write to the neighbour to request the removal of the tree, but the resident had declined this. It confirmed its position stayed the same; that the resident should engage with the neighbour. It confirmed it would support the resident if she pursued that route.
12. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said as a resolution she wanted the landlord to remove the tree. This Service understands that the tree fell over at the end of 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

13. The landlord’s grounds and tree maintenance policy set out that where issues are caused by trees not owned or managed by the landlord which directly impact a resident, it will take a pro-active role to resolve the issues by working with resident’s and other agencies.
14. It sets out that it will inspect trees in individual gardens when contact is received from the resident claiming the tree is causing them concern. A condition report would be generated and any remedial work found will be risk assessed and priorities for completion.
15. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 workings. Any extension needed will not exceed a further 10 working days.

The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about a tree in a neighbouring property.

16. When the resident first reported an issue with the neighbour’s tree, the landlord attended, in line with its grounds and tree maintenance policy to inspect the tree.
17. The inspection report noted that the tree had damaged the fence and had bulges, leading the tree surgeon to recommend its removal. The landlord promptly arranged for the necessary work and informed the resident about a six-month wait for such services. When delays are expected, it is crucial for the landlord to keep the resident updated. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations from the beginning with regards to the expected time for removal of the tree.
18. The landlord scheduled the removal for 6 September 2022. On that date the contractors attended early, and the resident was not home. It is unclear why the contractors went to the resident’s address given that the tree was in a neighbouring property. It is also unclear from the evidence provided if the landlord had informed the neighbouring property of its intention to remove the tree. This indicates a record keeping issue. While it was unfortunate the contractors attended early, the resident was advised the appointment would be rescheduled.
19. The resident had no contact from the landlord following the visit so contacted it again on 28 September 2022 to ask for an update. Following this the landlord informed the resident the property was in fact now not owned by the landlord and therefore it had no responsibility for the tree. While that may have been the case, it would have been useful for the landlord at that stage to have provided the resident with any advice on steps she could take to resolve the issue or to have considered if it could have taken any further action itself knowing that prior to the property being sold, it had agreed to remove the tree due to the risk it posed. The landlord’s response showed a disregard to the resident’s situation and lacked any empathy.
20. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 20 February 2023, it said it was sorry but the information it had given previously was incorrect as it did not in fact own the property the tree sat within. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had previously owned the property and that it was its delay in removing the tree that had caused this issue to occur; its response lacked empathy.
21. Given the change in the circumstances the landlord said it would contact the neighbour in question to remind them that they were responsible for the tree. Despite requesting evidence from the landlord, it has provided no evidence to confirm that it did in fact write to the neighbour. This is unsatisfactory; where a landlord raises an expectation that it would do something it needs to ensure that it follows through which such action.
22. A tree inspection report dated 15 March 2023 highlighted that the tree posed a moderate risk and recommended its removal. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have visited or written to the neighbour to discuss any potential action to remedy the situation.
23. Despite requesting evidence from the landlord, it has provided no evidence to confirm when it sold the property to the resident and therefore when it knew that it no longer had responsibility for the tree. While it is unknown when this occurred, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated this to the resident at the earliest opportunity to manage her expectations.
24. Furthermore, following a site visit to the property on 6 June 2023, the landlord informed the resident it was her responsibility to contact the neighbour directly to discuss works for the tree and said it would only become involved if the resident was unsuccessful. This is completely contrary to the landlord’s earlier stance and would have frustrated the resident, especially given that it had previously said it would contact them itself.
25. The landlord has a duty of care towards the resident and its properties, making it inappropriate for the landlord not to address the issue with the neighbour directly. This action contradicted the landlord’s grounds and tree maintenance policy, which says that in situations where the landlord does not own the tree, it would take a proactive role in resolving the issue. Advising the resident to handle the issue herself was not proactive.
26. Even if it now believed the tree to be not dangerous, its reports noted that the fence was bulging. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord was responsible for repairing the fence and therefore, at the least it would have been appropriate for it to have spoken to the neighbour with regards to the damage the tree was causing to its fence. Not doing so showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
27. The landlord only undertook a site visit to the property after the resident approached her local MP for support in the matter and after she had continued to chase the landlord for answers to her queries. It is not appropriate that it took the resident reaching out to her MP for the landlord to take action in this case during which time the resident was left chasing the landlord while being concerned about the danger of the tree overhanging her property.
28. During the site visit, the landlord inspected the tree and informed the resident that it posed no immediate danger, nor did the roots cause a trip hazard. However, given this conflicting information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a qualified tree surgeon to assess the tree. The sudden change in the landlord’s assessment would have been unnerving for the resident, especially since professionals had previously considered the tree unsafe and recommended its removal.
29. The landlord has a duty of care towards its residents and a duty to maintain its properties to a safe standard. Its complete change in stance despite the earlier evidence confirming the tree was in fact unsafe, without undertaking a thorough assessment of the tree highlighted a disregard to the resident’s safety.
30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the issue could have been significantly improved. Initially, the landlord agreed to remove the tree, but delays meant it did not remove the tree before it sold the property. The landlord then agreed to contact the neighbour about the tree but failed to do so. Later, the landlord changed its stance on the danger posed by the tree and advised the resident that it was her responsibility to speak to the neighbour. This response was contradictory to the landlord’s own policies and unhelpful.
31. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a tree in a neighbouring property.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a tree in a neighbouring property.

Orders and recommendations

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £300. This is made up of the following:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £100 for time and effort.
    3. £100 for the delay in the removal of the tree in the first instance.
35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.