London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202318685)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318685

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

27 February 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:
    1. Planning and completing tree works.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy that began in 2009. The property is a two-bed semi-detached house.
  2. In 2019, the landlord carried out an inspection of the trees at the resident’s property. It was recommended that the trees be reduced to ground level. Due to COVID-19 and scheduling issues, the works to reduce the trees were not completed until 10 September 2022.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2023. This was about the decision to remove the trees and the landlord’s actions around this process. The resident also raised several concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s records, the property being overcrowded, a lack of renovations at the property, ASB reports and a data breach.
  4. The landlord provided its response to the complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord said that a neighbour had complained about the trees and it had acted on those concerns. It provided a summary of the process and said that it had acted on the findings of the council’s arboricultural team who said that the trees needed to be reduced to prevent future damage. The landlord said it would not be removing the tree stumps but it would assess the last remaining tree to see if this could be left in place. It said that it had advised the resident that they should seek a mutual exchange if the property was no longer suitable.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 June 2023. Within the complaint, he said that his concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s records were not addressed. He provided examples of the records he disputed and said that his concerns around injuries caused by the tree stumps were ignored. The resident then provided a list of concerns that he said were not acknowledged.
  6. On 11 July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. The landlord said it could not change its records in line with his concerns but it would keep his concerns on file. It advised it would not pay for the removal of the stumps as it did not consider them a safety hazard. It disputed that multiple visits were made without an appointment and provided details and notes from several visits to the property. The landlord also provided answers to other questions raised by the resident in his escalation request.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service in August 2023 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within the resident’s complaint, he raised several areas of concern about the process which led to the removal of trees at his property. This included the initial decision to remove them, the planning of those works and the eventual works.
  2. This investigation will focus solely on how the landlord managed the housing element of the process. Any actions by the arboricultural team cannot be considered within this report as they are a separate function which lies outside the remit of this Service. We are only able to investigate actions taken by the council in its role as a landlord. Complaints about the council’s actions as a local authority can be determined by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, the decision to remove the trees and the actions of the arboricultural team will not be considered within this report.
  3. The resident raised a concern within his complaint that his details had been provided to a contractor and that this breached GDPR. It is outside the remit of this Service to investigate this kind of complaint and this would instead need to be reported to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
  4. The resident’s complaint submission makes reference to matters that occurred as far back as 2016. At the time of the stage 1 complaint being raised on 3 May 2023, the landlord was only required to consider complaints that were brought to it within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events within that period until the complaint process was exhausted on 11 July 2023. However, given the history of the complaint, this report may reference events prior to this period but this will be for contextual reasons only.

The landlord’s handling of planning and completing tree works

  1. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 response that the resident’s neighbour raised a complaint about the trees in 2019, due to their size. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that any trees on the property do not “cause a nuisance to neighbours, damage property or overhang outside your property.” As there was a concern that the trees met this criteria, the landlord was required to carry out a review of them.
  2. It is evident that an earlier inspection in 2016 found there to be no problem with the trees. However, the inspection in 2019 noted the trees had “matured beyond what could be maintained as a reasonable boundary hedge/causing boundary damage”. The findings from the arboricultural team said “removal to ground level was recommended.” On this basis, the landlord was required to act on the recommendations it received.
  3. Within his complaint submission, the resident questioned the term “recommended” as it suggested a lack of an obligation for the landlord to act. However, when considering the findings of an inspection, it is reasonable for landlords to carry out any actions that are labelled as ‘recommendations’. On this basis, the landlord acted appropriately in co-operating with arrangements for the trees to be reduced to ground level.
  4. It is clear that throughout the period in question, the landlord provided inconsistent explanations for why the trees were being removed from the property. This included a claim that the trees were being reduced due to their height. As the professional opinion of a specialist team had been obtained, the landlord should have ensured that it echoed this information within its responses. This is a service failing by the landlord and will have caused uncertainty for the resident, particularly as he was already unhappy with the decision to remove the trees. Those inconsistent statements then caused further frustration around the decision.
  5. It is clear from the landlord’s records that there were issues with the scheduling of the inspections and any required works. There are notes between 2019 and 2022 that show a continued issue with arranging visits to the property.
  6. The notes suggest that referrals were made to the arboricultural team to arrange and complete the required visits to the property. However, this team did not provide any detail of its efforts to attend the property, outside of saying they were unsuccessful. In most cases, these were referred back to the Landlord Services Officer (LSO) with a request to arrange an appointment with the resident.
  7. Several notes said that the inspectors or works teams had attended the property and were either refused access or they were unable to gain access. Some of those notes said that the resident had refused as he was unaware of the appointment or the reasons for it. Although residents should allow access to the landlord for any required works, it is reasonable to expect that they be provided with reasonable notice of the visit by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of those failed visits being arranged with the resident.
  8. The landlord identified in March 2020 that it had provided an incorrect phone number to the arboricultural team for use in scheduling visits. This is a service failing on its part which could only have contributed to the later scheduling issues.
  9. Given the number of problems in arranging these visits, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review why this occurred. It is clear that throughout the process the resident was responsive when contacted by the LSO to arrange further inspections or works. Had the landlord carried out a review, it could have made changes to the process such as the LSO arranging all future visits. This may have avoided further failed visits, prevented unnecessary delays and reduced the frustration caused to the resident.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord was obligated to act on the neighbours’ reports about the trees in line with its responsibilities, as outlined in the tenancy agreement. Following the inspection, having received the recommendations it did, it was reasonable for the landlord to co-operate in completion of the works.
  2. It is evident that the landlord could have avoided some delays had it provided adequate oversight of the process. Some delay, such as that caused by the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, was unavoidable. However, had the landlord provided the resident with clear and concise correspondence behind its decision and appointments to visit the property and conduct works, this process could have been completed sooner. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the planning and completing of tree works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident raised multiple issues within his complaint. For clarity, these have been addressed individually below.

Incorrect records and statements from the landlord

  1. Within the resident’s complaint, the majority of his submission related to incorrect statements and records held by the landlord. He referenced specific records, which he had previously obtained through an information request, in which he considered the content to be misleading or incorrect. This included statements to suggest he had complained about the trees himself and suggestions that he had been uncooperative in scheduling visits to the property. The records provided do not show either to be accurate.
  2. An example of this is correspondence and notes referring to a “tenant” but without making it clear which tenant it referred to. The lack of clarity makes it difficult to establish whether this referred to the resident himself, or a different tenant. As the resident’s neighbour had raised concerns about the trees, it is likely that in this case, the term “tenant” referred to the neighbour, rather than the resident. However, this is not clear from the notes and leaves an ambiguity which later caused a dispute around the accuracy of that information.
  3. The resident provided evidence of further landlord records with statements that did not include enough detail or could be misconstrued. It is understandable that when reading these statements, the resident could consider some of the wording to be critical of him. However, there was no evidence of any such wording or comments having caused any tangible impact or detriment.
  4. When the resident raised these concerns within his complaint, it was understandable that he requested the records be amended. The landlord refused this request but said it would keep his comments about the accuracy of the data on file. Given the range of disputed records and as the landlord would be unable to ensure that all records were entirely accurate, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer was fair and reasonable.

Overcrowding

  1. Within the resident’s complaint submission, he raised concerns about the occupancy of his property, due to overcrowding. The Ombudsman did not have sight of any correspondence or records of these concerns being raised in the period prior to the complaint. On this basis, this Service can only consider the landlord’s response to the complaint itself.
  2. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had previously advised him to explore the possibility of a mutual exchange. The landlord said that it explained that this would provide a “quicker route” to a move, instead of bidding on other properties.
  3. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its position that a mutual exchange would offer the most “viable option” for the resident. Although this does not provide a definitive path to the resident obtaining a move to a more suitable property, the landlord’s response was reasonable. Outside of bidding for properties on the housing list, a mutual exchange would be the most realistic option for the resident to obtain the move he desired.

Renovations

  1. At both stages of his complaint, the resident referred to a lack of property renovations during his tenancy. However, the landlord did not provide any response about this particular element of the complaint and instead referred to the mutual exchange.
  2. Within its evidence submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord said that it had not carried out any recent renovations at the property. The landlord said that the resident was not on any renewal plan list as he had installed his own kitchen and bathroom since moving in.
  3. In accordance with the Decent Homes Standards, a kitchen should be under consideration for improvement if it is over 20 years old and a bathroom should be considered if it is over 30 years old. As the resident has installed both since moving in, it would mean that they are currently a maximum of 16 years old. This is likely why neither room has been considered for an upgrade.
  4. The landlord did not provide such an explanation to the resident. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not respond to these questions in its complaint responses. This Service will recommend that the landlord provide an explanation of its position around the renewal of both the kitchen and bathroom at the property.

Tree stumps

  1. The landlord made it clear to the resident, prior to the removal of the trees, that they would only be reduced to ground level. The resident was also informed that the landlord would not remove the stumps as part of the process.
  2. It is understandable that the resident would be disappointed with this decision given that he said he had injured himself on them since the trees were removed. However, the landlord is not required to remove the stumps from the garden and the resident was advised of this in advance of the tree works being completed. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate this to the resident within its complaint responses.

ASB

  1. This Service did not have sight of any evidence of ASB reports by the resident within the complaint period under review. Therefore, this report can only consider the actions of the landlord following these being mentioned within the complaint.
  2. At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord provided information on how the resident could report any ASB to it. Given the lack of any outstanding ASB reports, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

Summary

  1. It is evident that in response to the resident’s initial complaint submission, the landlord focused its response on the key element of the complaint, the tree removal work. This meant that other concerns were missed and were not offered a suitable response. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord and it is understandable that this left the resident feeling that some concerns had been ignored.
  2. In its second response, the landlord did make a reasonable attempt to answer the numerous questions raised by the resident in his escalation request. It is the view of the Ombudsman that it did provide answers to the key elements of the complaint, although some were not addressed sufficiently. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of planning and completing tree works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £125 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of planning and completing tree works;
    2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should provide the resident with an explanation of its position in regards to the renewal of both the kitchen and bathroom at the property and likely timescales for any improvements.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.