Two Rivers Housing (202124391)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124391

Two Rivers Housing

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about overgrown hedges and Japanese knotweed from a neighbouring property onto her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began on 13 June 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord advised that the resident suffers from mental and physical health issues.

Scope of investigation

The resident reported concerns about the neighbours garden to the landlord around 14 June 2021. The evidence indicates that the neighbour is a tenant of the landlord. She reported that the garden was overgrown and Japanese knotweed was growing into her garden. The resident provided photographic evidence and the landlord assured her that it would look into it and determine the next course of action. The landlord further said it could not ask the neighbour to take any action until it had carried out its assessment.
The landlord consulted a specialist who confirmed that the plant on the properties was Japanese knotweed. It then made arrangements to carry out a treatment at the resident’s and neighbour’s property. On 16 July 2021, the landlord updated the resident on the actions taken and advised that it may take a long time complete the treatment. This Service has not seen evidence of further reports by the resident, concerning the overgrown garden, until February 2022 when she contacted the landlord. Also, she did not raise a formal complaint about the matter until September 2022.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the scheme that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. For this reason, this report focusses on events that occurred within 8 months of the date the resident submitted the formal complaint. This is because the evidence shows that she revisited this matter with the landlord in February 2022.

Policies and procedural information

The landlord advised that it does not have a separate policy for the eradication of Japanese knotweed. It provided this Service a copy of a draft tree policy which states that it will inspect its properties or communal grounds for the presence of Japanese knotweed and take any required action.
The resident handbook states that the landlord will keep residents informed at regular intervals when they raise any issues. Residents are responsible for keeping their garden tidy and well maintained. If they do not do so, they will be charged for any works carried out or the landlord would treat it as a breach of their tenancy condition.

Summary of events

The resident and the landlord communicated in several emails in January 2022 regarding a separate matter (anti-social behaviour). They discussed the possibility of a face-to-face meeting to look into the issues being raised.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 February 2022 and stated that the landlord failed to attend the appointment scheduled for that day. She further said she was generally unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. We advised her to submit a formal complaint to the landlord and contact us if she had further concerns.
Around 15 February 2022, the landlord discussed the resident’s case and the ongoing issues it was investigating. It noted resident concerns about the maintenance of the neighbour’s garden and that it may soon start to encroach onto her property again. The landlord advised the resident that she should make contact when it starts to overgrow.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 February 2022. It noted that they discussed her concerns about the hedges.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2022. She said the neighbour’s garden had started to grow over to her property and that her dog caught herself on the thorns at the front gate. She said she would update the landlord as the situation progressed.
The resident sent pictures of their communal path to the landlord by email (date unknown). She said the neighbour had never taken responsibility for maintaining her garden as it had always been cut free of charge by the landlord.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was unable to provide details of why its contractors cut back the neighbours hedges due to the general data protection regulation (GDPR).
The resident reported further concerns about the neighbour’s garden on 15 September 2022. She said this was obstructing the entrance and exit to her property.
The landlord responded to the resident around 16 September 2022. It said:
1. It had previously advised her that the hedge next to her entrance contained Japanese knotweed which needed to be treated by a specialist.
2. It was being treated but it would look into the issue further and advise on an update.
The landlord advised the resident on 20 September 2022 that it was dealing with the hedging, as there was Japanese Knotweed within it. It said the neighbour was not allowed to cut it as this had to be cut and disposed of by a specialist.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 September 2022. She said:
1. The landlord should install an alternative entrance and exit to allow safe access to the property due to the thorns and foliage blocking the entrance.
2. The landlord had not attended to the issue since she reported it in 2021.
3. The other parts of the neighbour’s garden growing onto her property was being ignored by the landlord despite her reports.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 21 September 2022 and left her a voicemail.
The landlord noted in its internal email on 21 September 2022 that it had made arrangements for a contractor to treat the Japanese knotweed in October 2022. It also stated that the hedge with no Japanese knotweed in it could be trimmed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2022. It said:
1. Its contractor attended the property to assess the hedge on 8 July 2021 and confirmed there was Japanese knotweed in it. It decided that this would need specialist attention.
2. The contractor treated the area, once but it had not carried out any further treatment since then. It apologised for the inconvenience as it should have been more proactive in dealing with the matter.
3. Japanese knotweed requires treatment over a 4-year period during the summer season. The treatment must be applied when there is no rain for a 4-hour period which had made things more difficult.
4. Cutting of the areas where knotweed is present after treatment counters the benefit of treatment, so it must be left uncut.
5. The contractor had provided assurance that it would attend early October 2022, dependent on weather conditions, and apply a treatment. This would be followed up summer 2023 for monthly treatments.
6. The contractor had advised that the rest of the hedge, where knotweed was not present, could still be cut. It was sorry that it had not previously considered this but had now raised the works order for it to be addressed.
7. Based on the actions agreed, her request for alternative routes to the property would not be required.
8. Due to the ongoing issues between the resident and her neighbour it would advise the neighbour to ensure their hedgerow does not encroach on her property.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 12 October 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had not committed to the actions agreed in its stage 1 complaint. There had been dry days, but treatment had not been carried out.
2. The landlord failed to take responsibility even though she first reported the issue in 2021.
3. The landlord should set a date for the garden works at regular intervals. She did not need to keep making complaints for the landlord to address her concerns.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 October 2022. It apologised that she had not received any updates on the works. It said its contractor would attend the next day depending on the weather. It asked the resident to confirm if she still wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The resident responded to the landlord on 13 October 2022 and confirmed that she wished to continue with the complaint. She said she was left with no choice than to dispose of overgrown trimmings from the neighbour’s garden at an additional cost.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 17 October 2022. It said it would aim to respond to the complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 9 November 2022. Below is summary of the response:
1. It had previously acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had failed to manage the treatment plan for the Japanese knotweed effectively.
2. Apart from the initial treatment carried out in July 2021 the second treatment was only completed in October 2022 following her complaint.
3. Given that the period of treatment to eradicate the knotweed is potentially 4 years minimum based on current advice, this delay was unlikely to have had an adverse effect on the overall treatment timeframe. However, it recognised this would have been frustrating for the resident as she had no choice than to chase up the progress.
4. Due to the resident’s complaint, it had identified areas of learning. It would liaise with the head of tenancy management to amend processes where longer-term action plans are required, to ensure follow on actions are documented ahead so they are not missed in the future. It would also ensure that the neighbours comply with their tenancy agreement in respect of their garden.
5. In respect of the treatment works and the hedges, it found that it could have completed wider research into potential solutions, particularly in respect of the area nearest to her gate. It had therefore arranged for a second opinion from another specialist contractor to see what options were available to ease access into her property.
6. The neighbour may have been restricted as to the areas they could maintain in their garden due to the presence of Japanese knotweed. It would look into this further to determine what areas could be legally maintained by the neighbour to avoid further incidents. It would ensure that the resident and her neighbour were updated with the same information to help with the ongoing situation.
7. It concluded that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports, as she had to chase for information and work to be completed. It also found that its communications around the hedge and garden could have been more effective and provided greater clarity.
8. In light of the failings, it offered £50 in compensation.

Actions following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord made arrangements with another contractor on 17 November 2022 to discuss the treatment of the Japanese knotweed.
On 19 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the case. She asked if the landlord had sought a second opinion on the best way to address overgrown plants blocking access to her property.
The landlord responded on 20 January 2023 that it had booked a joint visit with a specialist and a surveyor for 1 February 2023. It said it intended to get further knowledge of the knot weed to determine if it could be treated and a schedule of works.
The landlord met with the contractors on 1 February 2023. Subsequent to the visit it approved the quote from the contractors on 2 March 2023 and agreed on a treatment plan to start in April 2023. It updated the resident by telephone.
The landlord advised the resident on 24 April 2023 that the first treatment would be completed on or before 14 May 2023 and followed up by another visit in September or October 2023. Due to the unresolved overgrown garden issue from the neighbouring property, the landlord agreed to pay the additional costs incurred by the resident in disposing of the green waste. The resident expressed that she was still being left with the responsibility of cutting back the growth, but the landlord’s gesture was helpful.
The landlord advised the resident on 1 September 2023, that its contractor would carry out another treatment to the Japanese knotweed on 5 September 2023 depending on the weather.
The resident raised another complaint about the neighbour’s overgrown garden and other matters on 6 September 2023.
As part of its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2022, it advised the resident that while it had implemented agreed actions on the Japanese knotweed, little progress had been made in respect of her concerns about the neighbour’s garden maintenance. The landlord said it would follow up the matter with the resident to agree a realistic plan, but it may take time to resolve.
The landlord said in its internal emails on 7 December 2023 that it had opened a case against the neighbour regarding the management of their garden. It said:
1. The neighbour needed to cut back and remove the bamboo in their rear garden since the contractors had confirmed it was safe for them to go near the treated Japanese knotweed.
2. It wrote to the neighbour to advise that it would visit on 3 January 2024 to inspect their garden and discuss actions plan for any improvements.
The landlord noted that it visited the neighbour’s property on 3 January 2024 but was not given access.
Following its stage 1 response, the landlord contacted the resident on 16 February 2024. It said management had agreed that the case regarding the maintenance of her neighbour’s garden condition was being progressed by making regular visits to the property. It updated her on its attempts to inspect the neighbour’s garden and assured her that it would continue to provide regular feedback.
The landlord sent the neighbour a final written notification to inspect their property on 2 April 2024 due to several failed visits between January 2024 and March 2024. It said it would visit on 24 April 2024 and failure to allow access or make contact would result in further action being taken against them.
The landlord updated the resident on the actions taken on the neighbour’s garden on 1 May 2024. It advised her that it inspected their garden and noted that bamboo was encroaching onto her boundary through the fence in the rear garden and was also causing issues to the front garden. It assured the resident that it would agree an action plan with the neighbour to improve the condition of their garden. It said this would mainly involve the removal or maintenance of bamboo, shrubbery, hedges and weed and the removal of all rubbish within a timely manner.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 14 May 2024 following its visit on 24 April 2024. It reminded her of her tenancy obligations to maintain her garden and ensure it is kept in a tidy condition. It updated the resident on the actions taken and said it would carry out a further inspection of the property on 28 May 2024. In relation to the Japanese knotweed, it advised that it was on a 3-year treatment plan, with the next one scheduled to take place between August and October 2024. It said during its last visit, it had observed that there was no obstruction to her garden gate.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
We have seen from the evidence that the resident revisited her concerns about the neighbour’s overgrown garden in February 2022. The correspondence between them indicated that the garden was not yet a concern but a way of keeping the landlord updated on the situation. Although the landlord advised her to make contact when the hedges start to grow into her garden, this was not a proactive way of dealing with the matter. This said, the resident followed the landlord’s advice and made contact on 28 March 2022. This Service would expect the landlord to have arranged an inspection of the neighbour’s garden to view its condition and determine the best course of action.
In response to further concerns raised by the resident in September 2022, the landlord advised that it was unable to enforce the neighbour to cut back the vegetation in her garden due to the presence of Japanese knotweed. Whilst its advice was reasonable, the landlord’s actions concerning the Japanese knotweed were unclear. Though it responded that the Japanese knotweed needed to be dealt with by a specialist, it failed to provide clear actions on the steps being taken to address the issue. Due to its poor communication, the resident was left with no other choice than to raise a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the matter. This would have caused her some distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not handled the resident’s concerns as effectively as it could have when it responded to her stage 1 complaint. It admitted that it had failed to follow up the treatment of the Japanese knotweed since its visit in July 2021. It apologised that it had not managed the matter proactively and assured her that its contractor would visit in October 2022 to carry out the treatment. It also said it would advise the neighbour to ensure that they maintained their hedges to prevent them from growing onto her property.
The landlord’s actions at this stage were reasonable. It admitted that it had got things wrong, and it put a plan in place to make things right for the resident. However, it failed to provide an update to the resident on the treatment of the Japanese knotweed which left her with no choice than to request the escalation of her complaint on 12 October 2022. This Service notes that there had only been a total of 12 days between the landlord’s stage 1 response and the time the resident requested the escalation of her complaint. However, the landlord committed to commencing the treatment plan early October 2022. Therefore, it should have followed up with the resident and updated on a possible date for the works. Failure to do so meant the resident was left no other choice than to chase for an update. This would have caused the resident some frustration and uncertainty. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord promptly advised her that a date had been set for the contractor to carry out the treatment. However, the resident was not assured that her concerns were being taken seriously and decided to pursue her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord again apologised for its handling of her complaint regarding the overgrown garden in its stage 2 response. It recognised that its poor communication would have caused some frustration but that the delay in carrying out the treatment would not have adversely impacted the overall treatment plan. Whilst this may be the case, the resident reported that the overgrown hedges were blocking access to her property so the treatment of the Japanese Knotweed was contingent upon resolving the problem. Also, the landlord has not provided evidence of any steps taken or alternative resolutions implemented pending the completion of the treatment.
As with its stage 1 response, the landlord identified areas of learning in its record keeping to ensure follow on actions are recorded to prevent service failures. It sought to put things right by advising her that it would explore alternative options of easing access into her property whilst the treatment of the Japanese Knotweed was ongoing. It reiterated that the neighbour was not allowed to cut back the plants in her garden until it had given clear instructions that they could do so.
It offered £50 for the failures identified in its overall handling of her case and it agreed further actions. We have seen from the landlord’s actions following the completion of the stage 2 complaint that it kept the resident updated on the treatment plan for the Japanese knotweed. However, there was a delay in following up on its promise to keep the resident updated on the maintenance of the neighbour’s garden. It did not write to the neighbour about their garden until 7 December 2023. This was more than 11 months after it responded to the stage 2 complaint and a reactive move to another complaint raised by the resident in September 2023. Whilst there may be a reasonable cause for the delayed action, there is no evidence that the landlord committed to its promise to keep the resident updated on its plans for handling the neighbour’s overgrown garden. This would have caused the resident further distress, inconvenience and time and trouble.
The landlord learned from this error at a later stage in the case, and it regularly kept the resident informed of its actions. Overall, the landlord acknowledged there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports about the neighbour’s overgrown garden. It said communication could have been handled better and it apologised for the distress and inconvenience. It identified areas where it could improve its services and assured the resident that it would follow up the outstanding actions regarding the neighbour’s garden and explore if there were other means of allowing easier access into her property. However, the landlord did not deal with the issue proactively as it took another complaint from resident, before it took her concerns seriously and attempted to inspect the neighbour’s garden. In addition, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £50 compensation offered to the resident did not put right the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. In view of the above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about overgrown hedges and Japanese knotweed from a neighbouring property onto her property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about overgrown hedges and Japanese knotweed from a neighbouring property into her property.

Reasons

The landlord delayed its treatment of the Japanese knotweed from the neighbouring property. It did not communicate with the resident effectively and she incurred time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord. Its actions regarding the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s garden were also unclear. It was not proactive in dealing with the matter as it took several complaints from the resident before it took action. The landlord demonstrated some learning and sought to put things right for the resident but the remedies offered did not go far enough.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £400 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the overgrown garden.
2. It should also pay her the £50 previously offered if it has not yet been paid.
3. Follow up any outstanding actions regarding the garden maintenance and its treatment of the Japanese knotweed. It should update the resident on the status of the case in writing and provide a copy of the letter to this service.
4. Ensure compensation awarded is paid directly to the resident.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.