From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Aspire Housing Limited (202324303)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324303

Aspire Housing Limited

31 July 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 response to the resident’s request for it to remove trees.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is an end of terrace house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a mobility impairment.
  2. We have seen evidence to show that the resident raised concern about trees in her garden damaging the drains and path at least as early as June 2022. The landlord’s records show that it chased an update internally in October 2022, and the resident asked for an update in April 2023. In May 2023, it received a report from a tree surgeon regarding 4 trees around the property.
  3. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 28 June 2023. On 3 July 2023, she reported concerns about her new neighbour planning to install a 6ft fence and the implication on tree removal work and her garden. She asked for another update about the trees on 17 August 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed work to fell 2 trees on 18 August 2023.
  4. The resident made a complaint via phone on 23 August 2023. The landlord’s contact note says that she had been trying to get it to remove trees for 4 years as this was interfering with her TV signal and blocking light which caused plants to die. She added that it had removed her new neighbour’s tree straight away, which damaged her fencing. She was unhappy that it did not listen to her.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2023, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor service. It said there was no evidence that the remaining trees were affecting her TV signal but, following a visit, it agreed to fell 2 trees during the week commencing 20 September 2023. The resident asked it to escalate the complaint on 28 September 2023 as the trees were not removed on 20 September 2023. The landlord felled 2 further trees on 29 September 2023.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023, the landlord upheld the complaint. It explained that due to poor weather conditions, it was unable to fell the trees on 20 September 2023, and it should have informed her of this. It felled the trees on 29 September 2023. It reminded case handlers to inform residents where any scheduled appointments were cancelled. It sent flowers and chocolate to the resident as a goodwill gesture to apologise.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us in October 2023. She said that the trees had damaged pathways and the foundations of the house over 3 years, and her living room had lumps in the floor. She had problems with her TV signal for 2 years, fell on the path, and had multiple pest infestations. She also said the trees impacted the drains, lights, and roof. She attached a letter she had sent to the landlord regarding her experience and the impact from around 2019.
  2. The resident continued to pursue her concerns regarding the damage caused by the trees, including drainage issues, the path, and her fence, with the landlord directly through 2023 and 2024. She referenced the impact of the disrepair on her vulnerabilities. The landlord raised a new complaint on 19 July 2024 and provided a stage 1 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said the situation was ongoing for 4 years at the time of her complaint in August 2023. We encourage residents to raise complaints within 12 months of the matters arising. Whilst historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2022.
  2. The resident said that the situation and the disrepair at the property because of the trees impacted her health and caused injuries. We do not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages for injury. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  3. We are aware that the resident raised concerns about the impact of the trees on her drains and pathway at least as early as June 2022. However, she did not mention these within the complaint she made to the landlord in August 2023. We will not investigate her concerns about the delays in its handling of these matters specifically but will consider whether it adequately engaged with the complaint at the time.
  4. We note that the landlord addressed another complaint regarding the repairs to the drains, path, and fencing at stage 1 of its complaints process August 2024. The resident could have escalated this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process at the time if she remained unhappy with its response. We have not seen evidence to show she did and cannot investigate its handling of those issues as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to remove trees

  1. It is evident that the resident was pursuing her concerns regarding the trees for a significant period at the time of her complaint in August 2023. We can see that she had reported these issues at least as early as June 2022, and the landlord was aware that it needed to complete work to the trees before it was able to complete other repairs to the drains and path at the property.
  2. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it inspected the trees at any stage prior to 15 May 2023 despite evidence showing that the resident had pursued her concerns in June 2022, October 2022, and April 2023. This is a significant timeframe. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay or any other evidence that this was outside of its control. It has not demonstrated that it acted reasonably or communicated effectively with the resident, which was likely to cause inconvenience.
  3. The tree surgeon report on 15 May 2023 indicated that:
    1. One cherry tree was almost touching the house and roof and lifted the concrete path creating a trip hazard. They recommended felling the tree or reducing its size by 30%.
    2. A second cherry tree was overshadowing the garden and was likely to be causing root damage, but the roots were under a raised pond. They recommended felling the tree or reducing it by 30%.
    3. A birch tree had a thin stem which was likely to snap. They recommended either leaving this, unless it completed work to 2 other trees, or felling it.
    4. An ash tree was seemingly healthy but damaging a fence. It did not recommend reducing the tree as this would stimulate new growth which was more prone to disease. They recommended felling the tree, or leaving it, noting that it would require attention in the near future.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that it contacted the resident following her requests for updates on 28 June 2023 and 17 August 2023. However, its records related to these conversations do not provide sufficient information, and it is unclear whether it offered the resident a meaningful update on what work it would do, and when.
  5. The landlord’s repair policy states that it would complete major repairs, including groundworks, within 90 days. It would prioritise repairs where there is a risk of danger to its residents. The landlord arranged work to fell 2 cherry trees on 18 August 2023, which was within 95 days of receiving the tree surgeon’s report. While this was not significantly outside of its major repair timescales once raised, it would have been appropriate for it to have prioritised this job given the known related trip hazard to the resident’s path, her mobility vulnerabilities, and the length of time it had been aware of the issues.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete work to the 2 trees that it suspected were causing root damage in the first instance given they could cause further problems. It acted reasonably following the resident’s complaint by visiting the property and confirming that it would fell the remaining 2 trees. However, it would have been appropriate for it to adequately manage her expectations about its plan for the other 2 trees from the outset to avoid any confusion or frustration.
  7. The landlord acted fairly in its stage 2 response by apologising for not informing the resident that its plan to fell the trees during the week commencing 20 September 2023 had changed, and sending her chocolates and flowers as an apology. It also acted reasonably and demonstrated some learning from the complaint by providing feedback to staff. This was proportionate to put right this failing.
  8. However, in her complaint, the resident said she was unhappy that she had been chasing the work for 4 years, that the trees had affected her TV signal and blocked light, that it completed work to the new neighbour’s tree straight away, and that their tree removal had damaged her fence. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 on 14 September 2022 and apologised for the poor service she received.
  9. The landlord’s complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (2022) state that a landlord must provide the reasons for any decisions made. The landlord did not engage with its failings, provide reasons for its decision to uphold the complaint, or explain what the “poor service” was. It did not demonstrate that it fully considered the complaint at the time, which was a failing.
  10. The landlord did not comment on the length of time it had taken to address the problem with the trees or suitably recognise the inconvenience and time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing her concerns. While it said the remaining trees were not impacting her TV signal, we have not seen evidence to support how it checked this, and it did not consider that the delay in felling or cutting back the trees had inconvenienced her.
  11. In addition, the landlord failed to provide any suitable explanation as to why it had cut down certain trees first. It would have been appropriate for it to have explained its reasoning for this in view of the resident’s feelings that it acted unfairly and favoured new tenants. She also raised concern about damage to her fence because of the tree removal, and it would have been appropriate for it to have explained what it was able to do to put this right at the time.
  12. It is our view that good complaint handling can promote a more positive landlord and resident relationship. Explaining its position and considering the history of the resident’s reports more fully would have gone some way to ensure that she felt heard, demonstrated that it had fully considered her experience, and maintained or improved the landlord/tenant relationship. It is evident that the resident did not feel it had fully engaged with her experience and she needed to continue to pursue her concerns following the complaint. Had it responded more fully, the landlord may have prevented her additional time and trouble in asking it to recognise her experience.
  13. The resident did not mention associated repairs to the path or drains in her complaint, and it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not address these issues in its responses on this basis. However, the landlord’s records show that it was aware that the repairs relied on it completing work to the trees. Had the landlord considered the delay in felling the trees more fully as part of its responses, it would have also had the opportunity to confirm what it would do to address the outstanding repairs. This may have prevented the need for the resident to make a further complaint.

Summary

  1. The landlord responded at both stages of its complaints process within a reasonable timescale. However, it did not use this process to suitably recognise the time and trouble, or inconvenience caused because of the delay in progressing tree works. The landlord did not adequately engage with its failings. Its offer of flowers and chocolate as an apology was not sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident at the time.
  2. In its subsequent stage 1 complaint response in August 2024, the landlord offered £500 for “previous poor complaint handling”, alongside compensation for the delays in completing repairs, and the resident’s out of pocket expenses. It did not explain its reasoning for this offer within its response at the time. It has since explained to us that this was to recognise the delays in felling the trees and in repairing the associated damage.
  3. This offer is likely to go some way to put right the failings identified in our investigation and shows that the landlord was seeking to put matters right. However, it did not clearly explain the reasons for this offer to the resident and has not demonstrated that it sought to fully understand her experience. It did not put matters right at the time of the complaint in 2023 and it is unclear whether it would have made this offer had it not been aware of our pending investigation, and had the resident not spent additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution directly.
  4. For these reasons, we have find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove trees. The landlord’s offer of £500 is within a range we would have considered proportionate to put right its failings had it offered this at the time of the complaint in 2023. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay this, if it has not already done so.
  5. We have ordered the landlord to complete a review of the case to promote learning in both its handling of repair requests and its responses to complaints to improve its service to residents in future. We also have seen that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in August 2024 did not reference what went wrong, provide reasoning for its decision or justification for the compensation offered. In view of this, we have recommended that it considers this response as part of the review.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to remove trees.

Orders

  1.  Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings we have identified.
    2. Pay the resident £500 as offered in its August 2024 stage 1 response (toward previous poor complaint handling), if it has not already done so.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is to complete a management review of this case to promote learning in relation to both its handling of repairs, and responses to complaints. It should provide a copy to us. It should consider:
    1. The reasons for the delay in progressing the tree works and any learning it can take from this.
    2. Whether it has suitable systems in place for staff to record communication with residents, and any agreed actions to justify any decision making when responding to complaints.
    3. Any wider learning it can implement, such as staff training, to ensure that it engages with any failings, and justifies its decision making in its complaint responses. The landlord should consider a resident’s perspective when receiving a complaint response, and how it can use its complaints process to rebuild trust where things may have gone wrong.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the above timescales.

 Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord considers its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in August 2024 as part of the above management review into its responses to complaints.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation within 4 weeks.