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.

Amplius Living (202323434)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323434

Amplius Living

18 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of an overhanging tree.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues and lives with her children, one of whom is neurodivergent. She also has pets.
  2. The landlord’s records say that in February 2022 it appointed a tree surgeon to assess the safety of a tree which was overhanging into the resident’s garden. The tree surgeon found that:
    1. There were two large poplar trees in fair condition in a neighbour’s garden, not on land owned by the landlord.
    2. These tree branches were hanging over the communal alleyway and several gardens owned by the landlord.
    3. The landlord could reduce the branches back to the boundary line but it would need to gain permission from the owner before commencing work.
  3. We have not been provided with any evidence after this record until the landlord emailed the resident on 23 May 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had submitted a complaint form and raised an early resolution complaint. It said that, as the tree was not its responsibility, it would write to the neighbour and request they complete maintenance. It also said that the resident could contact the local council’s environmental health team as they would have more authorisation over private residents. The email said that, if the resident was unhappy with this outcome, she could escalate it to stage 1 of its complaints process.
  4. On 25 May 2023 the resident raised her stage 1 complaint which said:
    1. She had brought the issue to the landlord’s attention repeatedly over 9 years but it did not act.
    2. The tree was impacting the light in the property and falling branches made the family feel that the garden was not safe to use. This had impacted her neurodivergent child negatively as they needed light stimulation and access to a safe outside area.
    3. The falling branches and leaves were blocking gutters.
    4. She asked that the landlord either trim the tree or contact her neighbour and ask them to do it.
  5. Throughout June 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. On 13 June 2023 she spoke to the landlord over the phone and relayed her frustration at the lack of contact. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 June 2023 and advised it would provide a formal response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 20 July 2023 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that, as the tree was on private land, it could not take responsibility for maintaining it. The resident was unhappy with the response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She felt that, as the landlord had not visited to assess the tree, it had not considered the potential risk to her family from falling branches and the other impacts of the tree such as blocked guttering. As a resolution, she asked that the landlord either maintain the tree or ask the neighbour to do it regularly.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 14 August 2023. On 18 August 2023 it advised her it would not be able to meet the complaints policy timescale and extended the response time by 10 days. After several branches fell into the resident’s garden on 22 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and asked a tree surgeon for advice on how to make the tree safe. Internal records show that a tree surgeon confirmed that the tree was a fast-growing poplar which would continue to cause issues. They said that if the tree were owned by the landlord, they would recommend a height reduction and ongoing schedule of maintenance.
  8. The landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It did not uphold the complaint but acknowledged that its response was not within its timescales. It awarded £150 compensation for complaint handling delays. It reiterated that its surveyor had attended the previous month and a survey commissioned by the neighbour also confirmed that the tree was not a danger. The resident asked for a copy of the tree survey but there is no record that the landlord responded. Records state that the neighbour reduced the size of the tree by 60% in October 2023.
  9. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the tree and has asked us to investigate. She also said that, while the neighbour cut back the tree, it has since regrown and she feels that it poses an ongoing risk.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overhanging tree

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy states that private homeowners are fully responsible for their own gardens. If an owner neglects to maintain their garden to the point that it is causing a nuisance, the council’s environmental health team will be notified and may take statutory steps to abate the nuisance if necessary.
  2. The landlord did inform the resident that it was not responsible for the tree and she had the option to contact environmental health in the early resolution complaint response. However, it did not mention it again. It would have been good customer service for the landlord to have reminded the resident of this option at the end of the complaint process. The landlord also said it would contact the neighbour who the tree belonged to. While the landlord was not obliged to make contact with the neighbour, it did so to try to resolve the matter for the resident. Having agreed to do so, the landlord should have done this promptly. It did not contact the neighbour until September 2023. It should have managed the resident’s expectations. This delay in making contact with the neighbour and updating the resident, was therefore a service failing. This caused the resident frustration.
  3. The landlord’s records say that it arranged a survey which was completed on 12 September 2023. The resident disputes this and told us that no-one has ever visited to assess the tree. We asked for a copy of the survey but the landlord did not provide it. The evidence shows that the tree surgeon did inspect the tree on 22 September 2023 after the resident had reported fallen branches. From the evidence provided, it is not clear if a survey took place earlier that month. At this stage, the landlord asked the neighbour to keep the tree maintained. This was reasonable as the landlord did not have legal responsibility for the tree.
  4. The resident said the tree was beginning to affect guttering of the property, other gardens it owned, and the communal alleyway between the properties. Internal notes from August 2023 show that the landlord planned to investigate who owned the alleyway and then it would plan to manage the situation if it owned it. There is no record of the outcome of this investigation. The landlord would be responsible for the guttering and might be responsible for the alleyway if it owned it. We have made a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident in relation to this potential damage, if it has not done so already.
  5. The landlord told the resident that as the branches were overhanging onto her property, she had the right to remove them. However, given the household vulnerabilities it should have considered whether it could do this for her either as a goodwill gesture or as an ongoing service adjustment. Internal communications indicate it considered trimming the tree to the boundary but it is unclear what decision was made. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider attending each autumn, to remove tree debris, given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  6. While the tree was not the responsibility of the landlord, it still had a requirement to ensure that the property was safe for the resident and her family. In November 2023 the landlord’s records say that it sent a tree surgeon to the property to see if it could cut the trees back to the boundary but it discovered that this may cause overbalancing. It is not clear when this survey was done, and we have not been given a copy. There is no other mention of the risk of overbalancing in the landlord’s records.
  7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overhanging tree. Its record keeping was not thorough. From the evidence provided, it is not clear to us when any survey took place or what the findings were. The resident’s request for a copy of the survey was not responded to.
  8. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we consider our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  9. In this case, the landlord did take positive actions in its communications with the neighbour, however its inconsistent position on how much it would intervene led to additional frustration for the resident. The resident also felt that she had to chase the landlord for updates on whether the landlord would manage the tree. Its failure to consider whether service adjustments were appropriate also caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
  10. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate in this case. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there was failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.
  11. This sum also considers the vulnerabilities of the resident’s family which meant that the worries about falling branches and reduced ability to enjoy the outside space would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy from the period investigated was a 3-stage process. Initially, it raised complaints as informal under its early resolution process. If it could not resolve it, or if the resident requested it, it would escalate to the formal process. It promised to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at both stages and to provide a full response in 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process and should not have additional “informal” stages. At the time of the complaint, following the Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. At the time of this report, it is a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code and the landlord has made us aware that its new policy adheres to this. We will therefore make no additional recommendations relating to complaint handling stages in this report.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a formal complaint 26 working days after her request. This is longer than the 5 working day target in its policy and is not reasonable. There were also delays in the stage 2 acknowledgement which came 16 working days after her escalation request.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response came 15 working days after the stage 1 acknowledgement. While this was over the 10-working day target in its policy, it was not unreasonably so. At stage 2, however, the landlord issued its response 44 working days after the acknowledgement. While it contacted the resident to advise it would need to extend the deadline, it did not meet it. This led to the resident feeling she had to chase the landlord for a complaint response. It could have also led to her delaying approaching us.
  5. When investigating whether there had been service failure, the landlord should have considered whether the resident and her family may have been more adversely impacted by the situation because of their vulnerabilities compared to other residents who did not have the same vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that it did this, and in fact there was no mention of the resident’s vulnerabilities in the complaint responses.
  6. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  7. Considering the evidence, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as its acknowledgements and responses were not issued in a timely manner. However, the landlord apologised at both stages and made an offer of £150 compensation which was reasonable and consistent with our remedies guidance. This offer amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overhanging tree.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in the format preferred by the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced due to the landlord’s handling of the reports of an overhanging tree. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears where they exist.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm any household vulnerabilities and ensure these are properly recorded on its internal systems. Any adjustments should be confirmed in writing, and the landlord must set a timescale for when they may be reviewed.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £150 for complaint handling as offered during the complaint process if it has not done so already. A finding of reasonable redress has been made, on the basis that this sum is paid to the resident.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident in relation to potential damage to the alleyway and guttering at the property, if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord should consider, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, if it will attend the property each autumn to remove tree debris from the garden.