Bristol City Council (202441973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441973

Bristol City Council

24 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 handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a tree beyond her garden fence.
2. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The resident lives in a house with her children, one of whom is now an adult, who have SEN (special educational needs), which the landlord is aware of.
4. The resident’s rear garden neighbours a block of flats, also owned and managed by the landlord. An ash tree is located between the boundary fences of these 2 properties.
5. The resident first raised concerns to the landlord that the tree was impacting her and her children’s ability to use the garden in June 2023. She told the landlord that the tree was blocking light and leaves were dropping from it into her garden.
6. The landlord told the resident its tree officer had inspected the tree in January 2023 as part of a 5-year routine cyclical inspection and had not observed any defects. It told her it did not remove healthy trees or prune them for reasons such as light or falling leaves, but that she had a common law right to prune back parts of the tree growing over her boundary should she wish to.
7. In December 2023, the landlord’s contractor caused damage to the resident’s bathroom whilst carrying out an intrusive asbestos survey.
8. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2024. She said:
   1. It had not maintained the tree and that debris and pigeon droppings coming from it were impacting her children’s ability to use the garden. She said she wanted the landlord to remove the tree.
   2. Its contractor had not returned to make good the damage caused in her bathroom.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 4 June 2024. It said:
   1. There were no structural or physiological defects to the tree and in line with its tree policy, it would not complete any works to it.
   2. There was a possibility the tree was located in the resident’s garden due to her fence not being accurately placed along the boundary of the 2 properties. It said if this was the case, she would be responsible for maintaining the tree in line with her tenancy agreement.
   3. Its surveyor would visit the resident’s property to assess the damage in the bathroom.
10. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 23 June 2024. She said she was satisfied with its response regarding its handling of her requests for repairs to the bathroom but not in respect to the tree. She said the fence had been in that position since her tenancy began, and that it was not her fault it was in the wrong place.
11. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 August 2024 to extend the date for its stage 2 response to her complaint to 6 September 2024.
12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint on 6 September 2024. It confirmed her fence was not accurate but placed at an easy location excluding the tree. This meant the tree was located within the resident’s garden and as per her tenancy agreement, it was her responsibility to maintain the tree.
13. The resident has told us that the landlord has since put up a metal fence beyond the tree which separates it from the neighbouring property. However, she said she cannot access the tree as it is still beyond her own boundary fence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. We are aware the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom. However, this matter was not included in the resident’s stage 2 escalation request to the landlord, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s action in relation to this as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to this issue through its whole complaints process before we consider it. The resident can raise a stage 2 complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns regarding the bathroom repairs further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which says we cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

15. The landlord’s tree policy states:
    1. It will not prune or remove trees to stop or reduce bird droppings, leaf fall, or to improve natural light in or to a property.
    2. Residents have a common law right to remove parts of a tree from the point where it crosses the boundary into their property.
16. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents must maintain their garden including hedges and trees.
17. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1 and stage 2 of its process, the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and will provide a response within 15 working days.
18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. Landlords are required to:
    1. Respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days.
    2. Respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days.
    3. Decide whether an extension to the timescales set out above are required and must be no more than 10 working days for stage 1 responses and no more than 20 working days for stage 2 responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove the tree

19. The landlord acted appropriately by seeking the advice of a specialist member of staff to determine whether it needed to remove the tree. It was entitled to rely on this advice and on the information gained as part of the cyclical inspection of the tree in January 2023. The landlord demonstrated it took the matter seriously by making sure there were no current concerns regarding damage or danger in relation to the tree before concluding that it would not remove it.
20. The landlord applied its tree policy correctly by stating it would not remove or prune the tree due to the impact of bird droppings, leaf fall or natural light on the resident and her use of the garden. It then provided the resident with the outcome of its decision and the reasons for it promptly. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and shows it handled the resident’s request in line with its own policy.
21. We understand the tree impacts upon the resident’s ability to use a section of the garden and that this has caused her children distress especially given their SEN needs. However, our investigation has focused on whether the landlord acted fairly, in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures and industry best practice.
22. In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has confirmed that maintenance of the tree is the resident’s responsibility. Whilst it is reasonable to expect residents to maintain their own garden, including any trees within it, the landlord has not repositioned the fence to reflect the accurate boundary of the resident’s garden. This means the landlord’s stance on the matter is unfair as it expects the resident to be responsible for maintaining a tree that she does not have reasonable access to. This is an unfair position for the landlord to take and a failure on its part which has caused the resident distress.
23. The resident also said the landlord has also put up a metal fence separating the tree from the neighbouring block of flats. If is unclear whether this metal fence reflects the true boundary line of the properties but even if it does, the resident remains unable to access the area where the tree is.
24. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove the tree. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of service failure an order of compensation of £100 may be appropriate where there has been a failure by the landlord, but it has not affected the overall outcome for the resident. As such, we have determined an order of £100 compensation is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s request for it to remove the tree.
25. The landlord must also make appropriate amendments to the resident’s fence to reflect the actual boundary line to allow the resident reasonable access to the tree to maintain it herself in line with her tenancy agreement. If it does not do this, the landlord must take responsibility for the maintenance of the tree itself in line with its tree policy. We will order the landlord to provide its decision in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman and clearly explain its reasoning.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

26. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident contained copies of internal emails relating to the investigation of the complaint. This was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of effort by the landlord in tailoring its response to the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord should have issued a better-quality response, we have not found it responsible for service failure as there was a limited overall impact on the overall complaint as the landlord later issued a stage 2 complaint response which did demonstrate a more resident-focused approach and a better-quality response.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident within 15 working days. This was in line with its published timescales but was not compliant with the Code. As this was a minor delay however, we have found no service failure as it did not cause a significant adverse impact to the resident. The Ombudsman has raised this with the landlord in relation to other complaints we have investigated and therefore we will not order it to take the same action again regarding noncompliance in this case.
28. There was a delay by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process, but it contacted her before the deadline was met to tell her it would need an extension to its response. It then issued the resident with its stage 2 response within 15 working days. This was in keeping with the Code and therefore reasonable and not a failure by the landlord.
29. Based on our findings above, we have found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint as the failures identified were minor and had no significant adverse impact on the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a tree beyond her garden fence.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress caused to her by its handling of her requests for it to remove a tree beyond her garden fence.
33. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to amend the resident’s fence to reflect the actual boundary line to grant her reasonable access to the tree or take responsibility for its maintenance itself. It must provide its decision in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman and clearly explain its reasoning.
34. The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.