London Borough of Lambeth (202402913)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402913

London Borough of Lambeth

14 August 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:
   1. Reports that the dividing fence was broken and the neighbouring garden overgrown.
   2. Concerns regarding the tree trunk in his garden.

Background

2. The resident’s secure tenancy began in 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a converted house with a garden. His neighbour at the time of his complaint was also a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident complained to the landlord, in August 2023, that his garden was unsafe for his children due to the broken dividing fence, the neighbour’s overgrown garden, and the tree trunk in his garden.
4. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 14 September 2023, referred to its inspection 1 week earlier. It said that it would further inspect the resident’s garden the following week but could not complete fence repairs until the neighbour cleared her garden. It said that it had contacted her about this. It advised it would assess his tree trunk but that, if it was not diseased, it would be his responsibility if he wished to remove it.
5. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 September 2023. He highlighted that the fence was broken even without the neighbour’s overgrown garden. He asked that a 6 foot fence be installed.
6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 25 October 2023, said that it was only responsible for replacing the fence with one of a similar height. It said that it had found that the tree trunk was not diseased and so it was the resident’s responsibility. It repeated everything it had stated at stage 1 concerning the neighbour’s garden and the fence repair.
7. No further information has been seen until October 2024, when the landlord internally discussed its intention to clear the overgrown garden, and replace the fence, now that the neighbouring property was vacant.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. He expressed his frustration with what he felt was his unusable garden and the landlord’s lack of action. He stated his wish to be compensated for his “long hours and 100’s of emails” pursuing the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of fence repair reports and neighbouring garden concerns

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that tenants must keep their garden tidy. His neighbour’s tenancy agreement has not been seen but it is reasonable to conclude that it would have stated the same or similar. The landlord’s ‘housing services’ handbook on its website states that fencing will only be “renewed to match existing”.
10. The resident’s complaint, in August 2023, said that his neighbour’s garden was entirely overgrown with thorny bushes. He said that the bushes had grown through and over the small broken dividing fence, which also had sharp edges, and rendered his garden unusable to his infant child.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response the following month, accepted that the fence was broken but that it could not repair it until the neighbour had cleared her thorny garden. It further stated that it had previously cleared her garden as a goodwill gesture but that it was her responsibility to maintain. The resident’s escalation a few days later said that his neighbour’s vulnerabilities meant she would never maintain or clear her garden. He highlighted that it was the landlord’s responsibility to enforce her tenancy agreement.
12. The landlord provided us with limited information beyond the resident’s complaint and its responses. As such, while the resident told us of his time and trouble chasing the matter, it is unknown how long he had been pursuing it prior to his complaint. It is also unknown when the landlord had completed the garden clearance it referred to, which had since grown back.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had contacted the neighbour and told her it would be a breach of her tenancy if she did not maintain her garden. The landlord has provided no evidence of this. It is therefore unclear whether it was referring to its discussions with her when it completed its previous garden clearance, or more recent actions it may have taken.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response, in October 2023, stated that its duty was to repair or replace the fence with one of a similar height. This was in line with its published guidance. However, the resident had expressed his concerns that the neighbour would never clear her garden, and had referred to the landlord’s tenancy enforcement obligations. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to address these points. Its stage 2 response instead only provided a verbatim repeat of what it had stated at stage 1 regarding the fence and neighbouring garden.
15. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a 6 foot fence was in line with its published guidance. However, it did not respond to his specific concerns, and it has failed to evidence that it did anything at all that may have allowed it to complete the fence repair it had committed to. His complaint was therefore unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of tree trunk concerns

16. The landlord’s ‘housing services’ and related handbooks on its website, state that tenants are responsible for any trees in their garden. It says that it will not remove trees or the stumps of trees.
17. The resident’s complaint, in August 2023, expressed his concern that the large tree trunk in the corner of his garden had woodworm and was at risk of falling. The landlord’s stage 1 response in September 2023, said that its housing officer had photographed the tree during its garden inspection the previous week. It explained that the photographs would be assessed by its specialist tree team, but that it would only act if the tree was diseased.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response, the following month, stated that its tree team did not consider the trunk to be diseased and it therefore remained the resident’s responsibility. While this may have been in line with its published guidance, and therefore reasonable, no evidence has been seen that it sought or received the tree team’s assessment. The landlord has therefore failed to evidence the basis for its decision.
19. Overall, the landlord’s actions and responses to the resident’s tree concerns were timely. It told him that its decision was based on the assessment of its specialist team, which would have been reasonable, but has provided no evidence that supports this. The resident’s complaint was therefore unresolved.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports that the dividing fence was broken and the neighbouring garden overgrown.
    2. Concerns regarding the tree trunk in his garden.

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation, comprising of:
    1. £150 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of fence repair reports.
    2. £50 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of tree concerns.
22. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within 4 weeks.