Estuary Housing Association Limited (202335719)

Background

1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the block. The freeholder acts as the property management company and is responsible for grounds maintenance. In April 2023, the resident requested the landlord to either trim or cut down a tree which was blocking sunlight into her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for tree maintenance.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the request for tree maintenance.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for tree maintenance

4. The landlord acknowledged failures in its communication regarding the maintenance request and offered proportionate compensation to put this right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

6. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her maintenance request after its final response in January 2024, including its attempts to ascertain who is responsible for the land the tree was situated on. Therefore, we have not investigated the landlord’s actions after January 2024.

What we have considered

7. The tree the resident asked to be maintained is not on the landlord’s land. The landlord and the management company are not therefore responsible for its maintenance. Guidance on the website gov.uk confirms a property owner can trim branches that cross into its property but cannot remove full branches or the tree. It must ask the landowner to take that action to do so.
8. The resident asked the landlord to either maintain or remove the tree in April 2023. The landlord contacted the management company to request it complete tree maintenance and chased it on several occasions up to December 2023. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take on the basis it initially thought the management company was responsible to conduct the tree maintenance.
9. The landlord updated the resident on the actions it had taken but neither it nor the management company told the resident they were not responsible for the tree until December 2023. The landlord also failed to tell the resident it had attempted to contact the third party landowner (a gym)until January 2024.
10. We do not have information to show when the landlord became aware another party was responsible for maintaining the tree. However, the length of time taken to pass on what was relevant information relating to the handling of her request for tree maintenance was unreasonable and a communication failure. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint response.
11. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had contacted the gym about the tree and would provide an update to the resident by the end of January 2024. The evidence shows the landlord gave the update as promised. While the landlord is not responsible for grounds maintenance, it was reasonable in the circumstances for it to contact the gym to request it takes action to maintain the tree.
12. Whilst the landlord’s efforts were proactive and well meaning to attempt to resolve the situation for the resident, it would be reasonable for it to ensure all parties were kept updated with what was happening. This is because in the event the situation reached the point of escalation through legal channels, it would be the responsibility of the management company to take this forward with a third party.
13. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord’s apology, and compensation offer of £100 were proportionate to its communication failures to keep the resident updated on how it was interacting with the management company.
14. This leads to our determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord issued its stage 1 response outside the 10-working day timescale of its policy, but it did agree an extension with the resident before its response was overdue. It issued its response within the subsequent timescale it agreed. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response within the timescale of its policy. We have found no failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

17. The landlord demonstrated it improved its communication with the resident following its initial failings. This is evidence it learned from its failings.