Peabody Trust (202341155)

Decision
Case ID	202341155
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	22 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a two‑storey house with a separate parking bay on an estate of 71 houses. Common areas at the front of the property include paths leading to the parking bays. Hedges and trees are located along these paths. The complaint concerns the landlord’s maintenance of the hedges and a tree opposite the resident’s property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports that hedges are not trimmed back regularly.
   2. The resident’s reports that there was an overgrown tree located by his front door that needed to be trimmed back.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that that hedges were not trimmed back regularly.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that there was an overgrown tree by their front door that needed to be trimmed back.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not deliver the required seasonal hedge cutting or respond to the resident’s later report of hedge growth, in line with its policy and service level. It also showed poor record keeping for garden maintenance. This caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident.
5. The landlord did not inspect the tree it had committed to inspecting during the complaints process. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who was required to chase it up.
6. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and address all issues in its responses. This caused the resident time and trouble securing a resolution.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £50 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports that that hedges were not trimmed back regularly. £50 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider whether a refund of garden maintenance service charges for May 2023 is appropriate. This relates to the period when hedge maintenance should reasonably have been attended to.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should review how it schedules seasonal works between peak growth periods e.g. from spring and October. It should consider growth patterns and seasonal practices to reduce reliance on residents reporting needs and service failures.
The landlord should review its record‑keeping for garden maintenance and monitoring. This should ensure it can accurately record attendance and outcomes and clearly report this information to residents.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should register a new complaint about the matters raised by the resident on 24 October 2023 and respond in line with its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 June 2023	The resident complained that hedges on the estate had been overgrown for 8 months. He said this damaged his company car and made it difficult to park in his bay.
8 June 2023	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
11 August 2023	The landlord emailed the resident following their conversation that day. It noted the resident also had a complaint about a tree branch across his front door.
14 August 2023	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said: It understood the resident wanted compensation and more frequent hedge trimming. It had no fixed timescales for trimming back hedges and they were done when required. It said maintenance could be delayed if birds were nesting. No issues had been raised in the last monthly inspection. The hedges were trimmed on 8 June 2023, after the resident complained and would be done again in the next four weeks. Its gardeners were not responsible for tree maintenance. The landlord said its contractors would inspect the tree in the next four weeks. It said trees would not be cut back unless they were diseased or posed a health and safety concern. It had not identified any service failure in its garden maintenance, did not uphold the complaint, nor consider a service charge refund appropriate. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for its poor communication throughout the complaint, its delay in replying and the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
14 August 2023	The resident emailed the landlord. He said: There had been service failure because the hedges had not been trimmed since November 2022. The hedges were not trimmed on 8 June 2023 but a few days later. He believed that, without raising a complaint, the hedges would have remained overgrown. He was unhappy with poor communication and complaint handling. He wanted further compensation.
4 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
13 September 2023	The resident emailed the landlord. He added to his complaint that its complaint handler had repeatedly given him incorrect information.
29 September 2023	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It had found no maladministration with its gardening service. It acknowledged delays in complaint handling at both stages and said it had provided feedback to improve response times. It increased its compensation offer to £250, on account of the further complaint handling delays at stage 2 of its process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us on 23 April 2024. On 16 May 2024, he said the hedges had not been trimmed since June 2023 and continued to damage his car. He requested more regular hedge maintenance, evidence of completed works, and further compensation for delays in complaint handling
27 November 2024	The landlord surveyed and cut back the tree, following the resident’s new reports it was overhanging, and causing damage to his property.

What we have not looked at and why

7. The resident raised concerns about damage to his company car linked to overgrown hedges. The Ombudsman cannot determine legal liability. The resident should contact his employer’s motor insurer about any claim for damage and if necessary, make a claim for any damages to the landlords insurers.
8. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charges. We have therefore not considered whether the garden maintenance costs provided value for money. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, he may apply to the First‑tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the courts. We have however considered the landlords responses to the residents reports of poor service delivery.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that hedges are not trimmed back regularly.
Finding	Service failure

9. The lease requires the landlord to maintain the estate’s common parts. It also requires the resident to pay rent and service charges, which include a contribution to garden maintenance.
10. The landlords’ records state that it employs 2 gardeners to attend to garden maintenance on the estate for 4 hours each, every fortnight. Its estate management policy states that:
    1. Its gardeners attend once a fortnight, or as per the locally agreed frequency.
    2. It also provides a reactive service for unscheduled work and aims to respond to non‑emergencies within 5 working days.
    3. Seasonal tasks are completed as needed. The key aims of its hedge cutting and maintenance service are to provide neat hedges that are litter and weed free at the bases. Also, to prevent hedges obstructing thoroughfares or obstructing sight lines through sites.
11. The resident provided undated photographs to the landlord on 7 June 2023. They show hedges encroaching onto paths and the parking bay but not fully blocking access. The hedges were about 1.5 metres high and affected sight lines, which suggested they had not been attended to at the agreed service standards.
12. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 June 2023. It said hedges were usually cut in winter to avoid bird nesting season. This was reasonable and consistent with wildlife legislation, which generally considers nesting season to last from around March to August. The landlord said gardeners would attend on 14 June 2023, which aligned with its reactive repair timescale.
13. On 8 June 2023, the resident disputed that hedges were only pruned in winter and said he was tired of having to chase the landlord to carry out garden maintenance. The landlord has not provided evidence to fully confirm completion but its records state that its gardeners trimmed the hedges on 8 June 2023.
14. Internal emails state the resident reported further overgrowth on 4 August 2023. The landlord said it agreed on 11 August 2023 to clarify what he should expect from its garden maintenance service. In its stage 1 reply it explained its hedge cutting practices and that it would prune them within four weeks. Evidence shows the hedges were cut on 31 August 2023. While action was taken, this exceeded the reactive policy timeframe of 5 working days and did not demonstrate proper attention to the resident’s concerns.
15. In the Ombudsman’s previous decision, reference 202208733, addressing earlier complaints the resident made about garden maintenance, we ordered the landlord to review its record‑keeping relating to garden maintenance. It is therefore concerning that the landlord could not provide its maintenance and inspection records for this complaint period. This lack of evidence prevented it from fully addressing the resident’s concerns about the frequency of its attendance over the past 8 months.
16. Nevertheless, the resident has said the hedges were cut back in November 2022. While resident’s pay a monthly service charge for garden maintenance, it would neither be cost effective or a reasonable use to offer a monthly hedge cutting service, since the hedges would not be growing over winter. However, by June 2023, the landlord should reasonably have anticipated growth and maintained the hedges proactively, without relying on resident reports. This resulted in avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident.
17. In summary, the landlord’s approach during winter months was reasonable. However, it adopted an ad‑hoc approach when the growing season arrived and relied on residents to report maintenance needs. This meant the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about the regularity of garden maintenance. This, the delays in August 2023, and poor record keeping amounted to service failure. We have therefore made recommendations and ordered an apology and £50 compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s that there is an overgrown tree located by their front door that needs to be trimmed back.
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s tree policy does not set timescales for non-emergency inspections. It says the landlord will only remove trees in defined circumstances, such as disease, safety risks or structural damage. It will not prune or remove trees because of loss of light, blocked views or mess from birds. It may carry out limited pruning where branches obstruct access or raise health and safety concerns.
19. The tree is visible in the photographs the resident gave to the landlord on 7 June 2023. They show a high tree canopy with trailing foliage, no visible bird mess or obstruction to access. They do show that the tree may have reduced light levels and affected the view.
20. At stage 1, the landlord explained the limits of its tree policy and said it would inspect the tree. However, no evidence has been seen to indicate that it did carry out the inspection. This meant the resident had to report the issue again on 12 November 2024 before the landlord ultimately undertook work on the tree on 27 November 2024. This was a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

21. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time was in line with the Code. It defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, including a failure to provide a service. The policy stated that the landlord would respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
22. The landlord missed its response timescales, replying after 46 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2. The landlord apologised and offered £100 at stage 1 and £50 at stage 2, which were reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. However, it did not explain what learning it had taken to improve its response times until stage 2. At stage 2 it also mistakenly believed that it had offered £200 at stage 1, when it had offered £100, which resulted in a total offer of £250. While this was ultimately to the resident’s benefit, itdemonstrated poor oversight of the complaint.
23. The Code requires landlords to consider the outcomes sought by residents within the complaints process. On 11 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that his request for a service charge refund required consideration by a separate team, which was not the case. It ultimately considered the refund and reported the outcome at stage 1 of the complaints process. Its initial complaint handling failure caused confusion for the resident, for which it later apologised.
24. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 outcome on 14 August 2023. However, his complaint was not escalated until 23 August 2023. This delay was a further failing and added to the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
25. A complaints process should provide a timely resolution that addresses all issues raised. The landlord did not fully achieve this. At stage 2, it did not address that the tree inspection remained outstanding or that it had not met its policy timescale in August 2023 for attending the hedges. This delayed the landlord’s assessment of the issues and resulted in unnecessary follow‑up reports from the resident about the tree. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about advice given by the stage 1 complaint handler. As a result, the complaint was not fully resolved, and the response did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
26. After issuing its stage 2 response, in October 2023, the resident complained about unwanted customer feedback calls he’d received from the landlord’s marketing partners. He also complained about the conduct of the complaint handler to whom he had made the complaint. The landlord linked these matters to the original complaint instead of registering a new one. This was not in line with the Code and prevented the resident from progressing these issues with the landlord’s internal complaint process and potentially later to this service.
27. Overall, there were delays and omissions in the landlord’s complaint responses and missed learning opportunities.These failings amount to maladministration. The total compensation of £250 already offered, albeit inadvertently,was reasonable and proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. An order has been made to pay £250, which the landlord may offset by any amount already paid.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord could not provide all records of its communications with the resident during its complaints procedure. The landlord should keep complete records to support transparency and effective complaint handling.