Sovereign Network Group (202317025)

Background

1. The resident reported that the trees at the front of her property were too big and needed trimming. She was unhappy that the landlord cut them down to the stumps without telling her first and said in doing so it caused damage to vehicles and belongings on her drive.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Tree works and associated damage to her belongings.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of tree works and associated damage to her belongings.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Tree works and associated damage to her belongings

4. The landlord recognised it had not appropriately communicated with the resident about the proposed works. However, it failed to evidence that it had considered its legal obligations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and share details of its own liability insurers.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord failed to recognise it did not fully respond to all the points raised at escalation and that it delayed in responding to the complaint in line with its policy timescales.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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 cannot consider

6. We understand the resident raised an insurance claim for damage to her belongings directly with the contractor’s insurers which has not been successful. We cannot make liability decisions or determine who was responsible for causing the damage. Matters of liability are best dealt with either by an insurance claim or through the courts. Equally we will not comment on any outcomes of an insurance claim. While we cannot determine liability, we will assess whether the landlord responded appropriately and in accordance with its policies, procedures and its legal obligations.
7. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the tree work has impacted the health of everyone in the household. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we can consider

8. The tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for looking after trees. However, residents cannot damage or cut trees without the landlord’s permission. The tenancy states residents must allow workers in after being given 24 hours’ notice.
9. The landlord’s tree management policy states it will inspect trees every 3 years. If a risk is identified it will take suitable steps to manage that risk. Where contractors are used to undertake surveys, they will complete their own risk assessment. The landlord will not remove a tree unless there are safety reasons for doing so and it will consider the benefits to the wider community. It states it will comply with relevant legislation and where practical it will replace trees. Its complaints policy states it may offer compensation for damage to belongings.
10. The resident contacted the landlord around January 2023 to advise the trees at the front of her property had grown out of control and were disrupting the electrical lines in heavy winds. The landlord appropriately carried out an inspection of the trees on 20 January 2023 which recommended they be trimmed and maintained as a hedge. However, there is no evidence it shared these findings with the resident as she chased for an update on 1 February 2023. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to effectively manage the communication of the matter.
11. The landlord obtained a quote in February 2023 and scheduled for its tree contractor to attend on 21 June 2023. It failed to give notice to the resident it was coming. While we do not comment on how any reported damaged occurred, this failure prevented the resident from taking precautions such as moving vehicles and being present during the works.
12. We have not been provided with evidence that the landlord gave due consideration to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in line with its legal obligations and in accordance with its own policy. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a further inspection or checks in order to satisfy itself it was safe to cut down the trees during a period known for bird nesting.
13. It is also concerning that when the resident called the landlord to ask who had cut the trees, its records did not confirm it had organised the works. This highlights a significant record keeping failure. The landlord acknowledged this failing and appropriately made changes to ensure this did not happen again. It is likely this failing also contributed to the lack of communication surrounding the works.
14. It is understandable the landlord wanted to follow the specialist advice of the tree contractor. It was unreasonable that it did not explain these findings to the resident and why it was following these recommendations instead of its own report to maintain the hedge. Had it communicated the change in scope of works with the resident, it could have better managed the matter and her expectations.
15. An internal note confirmed that the trees were removed as they required consistent maintenance. It is understandable as providers of social housing, it is necessary for landlords to make the most effective use of their resources, and this will often involvemaking a decision to minimise future costs. However, it was a failing that this was not appropriately communicated with the resident. Its policy also states that it will consider replacing trees if practicable, however given the resident raised concerns about the security of her drive we have not seen that the landlord has considered this.
16. Our 2019 Spotlight Report on “Complaints about repairs” states, “If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.” The landlord told the resident it was not responsible for the reported damage to her vehicles and belongings on the driveway. The landlord also sought advice from its insurance team who advised she would need to contact the tree contractor to start a claim which she later did. While we understand the landlord felt liability lay with the contractor, once it learned from the resident this had not been accepted, it should have provided details of its own insurer. This is particularly so as it was aware that liability was disputed.
17. The landlord offered £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. While this was a reasonable offer, it was not entirely proportionate given the further failings. In line with our compensation guidance, we order it to pay the resident a further £250 compensation. This takes into account the lack of updates provided, the poor management of the change in proposed works and failure to provide details of its own liability insurers.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2022 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a published complaints policy which broadly aligned with the Code. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. It further states that if it needs more time, it will let the resident know.
19. The landlord did not appropriately:
    1. Respond in line with the Code or its policy timescales. It took 54 working days to respond at stage 1 and 72 working days at stage 2.
    2. Seek extensions with the resident in line with its policy or the Code or evidence that the delay was unavoidable.
    3. Address all the points raised at escalation. The resident raised concerns that the boundary should be reinstated, however in its stage 2 response the landlord should have reasonably considered its position.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to properly assess its handling of the complaint against the Code and its policy. Had it done so it would have identified the above failings. As such it also missed an opportunity to put things right. We order it to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. We have also considered the time and trouble incurred by the resident having to chase it and contact us. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

21. It is positive that the landlord has made changes in the way it handles complaints by creating a dedicated complaints team.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate and likely impacted how it managed this issue. It is positive that since the complaint, it has implemented changes. However, it should ensure staff accurately log and maintain clear records of communication with its contractors.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not appropriate. It is positive that it has since employed a delivery manager to improve communication of repairs to residents.