Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Housing 21 (202412204)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412204

Housing 21

30 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 response to the resident’s concerns about services charges for tree maintenance.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bed first floor flat within a retirement living scheme.
  2. The landlord has stated that the resident has several physical health issues and is therefore recorded on its systems as vulnerable.
  3. On 19 May 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about service charges relating to tree maintenance. She said:
    1. This was not a service residents should have to pay for. The landlord should pay these costs.
    2. It had not previously charged for the service.
    3. She had never agreed to pay for tree maintenance.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024. It said:
    1. It operated a variable service charge which covered the full cost of services provided.
    2. It had charged residents for tree maintenance since at least 2015. It was included on her service charge statement under ‘gardening and ground maintenance’.
    3. It had met with residents since 2022 to discuss proposed budgets and year end actual charges. It listed several meetings where it had discussed tree maintenance and added that it had distributed minutes from the meetings to all residents.
    4. She was obliged to pay service charges in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement. It had properly notified residents about the service charge budgets and increases each year. The charges were passed on to residents in line with its service charge policy.
    5. If she was struggling financially, it could refer her for support.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 July 2024. It tried to contact her by telephone and email to discuss why she was unhappy with its stage 1 response and ascertain what outcome she was seeking. The resident replied stating she would not reply to its calls or letters. The landlord therefore said it would base its stage 2 complaint investigation on the concerns and desired outcomes she had provided at stage 1.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2024. It said its stage 1 complaint investigation did not consider tenant agreements from the period the resident had moved in. It had now done so and noted these included a schedule of services including gardening. While it did not specifically mention tree maintenance, this was a core part of garden maintenance. It reiterated that it had been charging residents for tree maintenance for many years and that it had communicated this to residents through meetings and letters.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She does not feel she should have to pay for tree maintenance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within her complaint the resident has referred to the level and affordability of the service charge.
  2. This investigation has not considered whether the service charge for tree maintenance is reasonable. The level of service charge and the amount of the service charge increase is a matter more reasonably and effectively considered by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The resident should contact the FTT if she wants a binding determination as to whether the charge is reasonable and payable.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  2. While it has provided excerpts from the tenancy agreement in use at the time the resident’s tenancy started, its failure to provide the tenancy agreement has impeded our investigation into its handling of the issue of complaint. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about services charges for tree maintenance

  1. In 2007 the resident brought a case to the FTT regarding the landlord’s service charges. In that case the FTT determined the landlord’s service charges for gardening were reasonable and payable. We acknowledge this determination relates to a period not considered by this investigation and to general garden maintenance rather than specific tree maintenance charges. However, the resident accepted that her tenancy agreement required her to pay service charges for the communal garden. Therefore, while we have not seen the resident’s tenancy agreement, we are satisfied that the resident is aware that it obliged her to pay a service charge for garden and ground maintenance.
  2. Garden and ground maintenance is a broad term which includes any services related to the maintenance of gardens. This will usually include tasks like litter picking, weeding, planting, and maintenance of plants, trees, and bushes. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord included tree maintenance charges within its general garden maintenance charge.
  3. The resident has use and enjoyment of the communal garden. The garden requires maintenance to ensure it remains useable and safe. The landlord provides this service. It is entitled to recover the cost of services provided for residents.
  4. The landlord has charged the resident for tree maintenance since at least 2015. Each year it issues residents with a service charge estimate which lists the services provided.
  5. The landlord has communicated with residents regularly about tree maintenance and the associated charges. It did so during residents’ meetings and then sent copies of the meeting minutes to all residents. It also did so through regular newsletters throughout 2023 and 2024. During its meetings it consulted with residents about choice of contractor, quality of services, and which trees they felt should be prioritised for maintenance. This was reasonable and demonstrates it made residents aware of the garden maintenance charges and that this included tree maintenance work.
  6. Overall, the landlord provided services to maintain trees within communal gardens which the resident had use of. It was entitled to recover the cost of these services. The resident has been paying these charges since at least 2015 and the landlord made her aware of the charges through annual service charge estimates, residents’ meetings, and newsletters. We therefore find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about services charges for tree maintenance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about services charges for tree maintenance.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord mustapologise to the resident for its failure to maintain a copy of her tenancy agreement. It should communicate with her to ascertain whether she can provide a copy of the agreement.