London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202112708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112708

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 February 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request that it cuts back overgrown hedges and trees.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a building of similar properties. There is a communal garden.
On 17 March 2021 the resident phoned the landlord to make a complaint about an overgrown hedge in the garden blocking out the light. The landlord and resident use the terms bush, bushes, hedge and hedges interchangeably but for clarity this report shall use the term “hedge”. The landlord registered this as a complaint and sent an email acknowledgment the same day advising that it would provide a response before 31 March 2021.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident called later that day to discuss the hedge. The landlord tried to advise the resident that the caretaker would be attending to the hedge, however the resident was shouting and then he terminated the call.
The landlord sent its complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2021. The response stated that the landlord had asked the caretaker to attend to the hedge however after a neighbour reacted aggressively towards the caretaker, the caretaker had to leave. The landlord had sent a warning letter to the neighbour due to his conduct. The landlord confirmed that an assessment was being put into place to identify what work was needed and the timescales, but a decision had been made not to cut the hedge or trees until proper advice was sought. It explained that with birds nesting and strict laws in place regarding cutting the hedge and trees at that time of year, the issues would have to wait till the autumn unless they got clear professional advice to the contrary.
The response was labelled as a stage two response and started with: “I have reviewed your complaint at stage two of our complaints procedure and am writing to provide you with our final response to your complaint”, but ended with: “I hope that… you are satisfied with this final response. If you are dissatisfied with our response, please let me know and I will escalate your complaint to stage 2.”
The landlord’s records show that on 30 March 2021 it closed the complaint.
On 7 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating that he needed help with his complaint and wanted to find out who the complaints panel was so he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord asked for details of his complaint, and he replied on 8 April to say that it was about “a massive bush blocking out loads of light was meant to be cut back over a year ago and also two other trees need cutting back…the bush is along the fence line next door”
The landlord’s records show that on 9 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint via email and voicemail to the resident and raised a new complaint.
The landlord’s records show that the resident replied to the email that day to ask why it was being referred to as a stage one complaint when his complaint was already going to stage two and that he thought a panel was reviewing his original complaint.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it was dealing with the matter as a stage one complaint. Following this, the landlord discussed the matter further with the resident, who queried why he could not have a panel to review the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it did not use complaint panels and would write to the resident.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. It addressed the issues the resident had raised as follows:
1. The overgrown hedge: the caretaking team had confirmed that the hedge would not be cut back until August due to the nesting period, and assured the resident that as soon as the nesting period was over it would attend and cut it back.
2. The overgrown trees: the landlord was not cutting back any trees unless they posed a health & safety risk towards the building, however the resident would be advised when the next scheduled works would be taking place and that they were completed on a yearly basis.
3. It also confirmed that the complaint was closed and gave details of how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
On 2 September 2021 the resident contacted this Service to advise that he was unhappy with the landlord’s failure to maintain the garden and the resolution he was seeking was for the landlord to cut the hedge and trees back.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 10 September 2021 to ask for somebody to contact him as the trees and hedge had not been cut back. It noted he had contacted this Service and wanted to “continue making a formal complaint linked to” his original complaint. The landlord reopened the original complaint from March 2021. The landlord’s records show that the landlord raised a request for somebody to contact the resident.
There is no record of the landlord contacting the resident again until 6 October 2021 when the landlord emailed the resident as it wanted to confirm whether the complaint about the trees and hedge had been resolved. The resident confirmed that his complaint had not been resolved, as the trees were “massive” and blocking the light into the building. He also confirmed that he had contacted this Service about his complaint.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord issued its complaint response. This was its third response and was labelled as a stage one response. It explained that following a recent site visit to the property, its operatives would be attending that week to cut back the hedge to fence level to make it more manageable. It advised that although the hedge was some distance away from the property and not really causing a problem with the fence or the light, it was causing a nuisance to the resident and so it was taking action to remedy that.
The landlord noted that it was not able to comment on the tree “as it does not belong to us and is not on our land. However, we will continue to monitor the tree and if it looks like some of the branches are dying back then we will liaise with the resident behind to see what action they can take”. It advised that it would monitor the estate monthly and check the resident’s “particular area” on every visit. It gave details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident did not agree with its decision.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 October 2021 it made a site visit and recorded that the hedge had been cut back and that there were no further issues.

Assessment and findings

Reports about the overgrown hedge

Appendix 1 of the landlord’s estate management procedure states that trees and hedges should be of a reasonable height and well maintained. Therefore, on receipt of the resident’s initial report in March 2021, the landlord would be expected to assess the condition of the hedge. The landlord took reasonable steps to do so as it arranged for its caretaker to cut the hedge back, but the works could not be completed due to the behaviour of a neighbour. Following this, the landlord confirmed that it would need to wait until the nesting season was over before completing the works. Overall, this was a reasonable response because it is good practice to refrain from pruning hedges during the nesting season, which is between March and July.
The landlord assured the resident in its response of 21 April 2021 that as soon as the nesting period was over it would attend and cut the hedge back in August. However, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update in September 2021 as the works were still outstanding. In response, the landlord inspected the hedge and arranged to complete the works during October 2021; around two months after it committed to completing the works. Therefore, a service failure has been identified in relation to the landlord’s failure to complete the works when it committed to doing so. It is also noted that the resident has told this Service that the works have not been completed. The landlord should investigate this further, as detailed in the order below.

Reports about the overgrown trees

The resident initially reported that there were two trees that needed cutting back. While the landlord was under no legal obligation to reduce the size of the trees on the basis that they were blocking out light, its estate management procedure suggests that it keeps trees in communal areas well maintained. Therefore, the landlord would be expected to investigate the matter further on receipt of the resident’s report. However, there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the trees, and its response of 21 April 2021 was inadequate as this said it would not cut back any trees unless they posed a health and safety risk towards the building.
Furthermore, having inspected the communal garden during October 2021, the landlord’s subsequent response of 14 October 2021 referred to one tree only, and confirmed that the tree was not situated on its land. Therefore, the landlord failed to initially identify that at least one of the trees the resident had raised concerns about was not situated on land it owned, and that it would not be responsible for cutting this tree back.
It is noted that the landlord would not be able to compel the owner of the land to cut the tree back on the basis that it was blocking light. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that it would liaise with the owner of the land concerning health and safety issues only.
The landlord also failed to clarify its position in regard to the other tree that the resident had raised concerns about. The resident has told this Service that this tree is situated in the communal garden behind the bin shed, and therefore, that the landlord is responsible for maintaining this tree. This has been addressed by the order detailed below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy confirms the following:
1. Stage one: the landlord will aim to provide a written response within 10 working days. If this is not possible then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
2. Stage two: the complainant will be contacted within two working days to obtain details of their complaint and the response will be provided in writing within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. After a resolution has been agreed and the decision confirmed in writing, the landlord will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
The landlord sent its first response to the complaint on 29 March 2021. This should have been a stage one response however this response was labelled a stage two response in error. The response also stated that the complaint had been considered at stage two of the complaints procedure and that this was a final response, but then gave details of how to escalate the complaint to stage two. This is likely to have caused confusion in regard to the stage the complaint had reached.
When the resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 to escalate his complaint, the landlord should have escalated the original complaint to stage two but instead it opened a new complaint at stage one, with a different reference number. The resident asked why it was being dealt with as a stage one complaint but the landlord failed to explain the reason why, or consider whether it should have escalated the original complaint in line with its complaints procedure. On 21 April 2021, the landlord issued a stage two response with a new complaint reference number. Again, this is likely to have caused confusion in regard to how the complaint was being handled and the stage it had reached.
When the resident contacted the landlord again on 10 September 2021 to report that the hedge had not been cut back, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate this further and confirm when the works were being carried out. However, as the complaint had already exhausted the complaints procedure in April 2021, the landlord’s response should have been sent as an update to the existing complaint. This is also the process outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy which confirms that it will monitor progress until all actions agreed in a complaint response are complete. Instead, on 14 October 2021 the landlord sent its response as a stage one complaint response under the original complaint reference number. Again, this was not in accordance with the complaints procedure and is likely to have caused confusion in regard to how the landlord was dealing with the complaint.
There was also an unreasonable delay in the landlord contacting the resident after he requested a call back on 10 September 2021. The landlord contacted the resident 16 working days later on 6 October, significantly exceeding the two-working day target. When the landlord did issue its written response, it would have been reasonable for it to address and apologise for the delay, however it failed to do so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request that it cuts back overgrown hedges and trees.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s reports about the hedge and trees. While the decision to delay the hedge trimming works until after nesting season was reasonable, there was a delay in it arranging the works once the nesting season was over. The landlord initially failed to identify that one of the trees was situated on land it did not own, and it failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns about another tree.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure. It referred to its initial complaint response as a stage two response, it opened a new complaint at stage two, and it then re-opened the original complaint and responded again at stage one instead of issuing an update to the existing complaint. This is likely to have caused confusion in regard to how the complaint was being handled and the stage it had reached.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown hedges and trees.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
2. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect the hedge and trees, with input from the resident to identify the relevant trees if necessary. Following this, the landlord should confirm to the resident in writing the action it will be taking to address any issues with the hedge and trees, having regard to its estate management procedure. If the landlord will not be taking action in regard to any of the hedges or trees, it should clearly explain the reason for this.
3. Review its staff training regarding complaints handling to ensure that all staff act in line with its complaints procedure and this Service’s complaint handling code.
The landlord must contact this Service within six weeks of this report to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.