Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Luton Borough Council (202331379)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331379

Luton Borough Council

9 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 handling of the resident’s request for maintenance of trees at the property and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident was the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroomed house. Her tenancy started on 13 November 1989. The landlord is a council. The resident has severe arthritis and other health conditions. Under paragraph 25.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the resident’s daughter is authorised as her representative. For ease of reading both the resident and her daughter will be referred to as the resident in this report.
  2. The resident is now freeholder of the property following completion of the Right to Buy process on 13 November 2023.
  3. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint by email on 24 October 2023. She was unhappy that:
    1. She had reported an issue with 2 trees in the front garden to the Parks and Countryside Service in May 2022 and nothing had been done.
    2. When she chased it up the parks department told her on 12 October 2023 that she should have reported the issue to the landlord to investigate.
    3. The landlord would not remove the trees even though they were:
      1. Blocking sunlight and view from the house.
      2. Causing cracks to the public pathway as well as raising the concrete path and steps at the property, creating a tripping hazard.
      3. Shedding twigs that were creating a slippery layer on the path.
    4. She was anxious to resolve the issue as her Right to Buy application was due to complete in November 2023.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 31 October 2023. It said:
    1. It had prioritised the complaint response due to the resident’s Right to Buy application.
    2. As per the tenancy agreement, the garden is the resident’s responsibility. While the landlord may assist when needed, the resident will be recharged for this.
    3. As per the tree guidance, trees will not be cut back due to:
      1. Leaf fall.
      2. Blockage of light.
      3. Minor root damage that can be repaired without removal of the tree.
    4. The complaint was not upheld for these reasons.
  5. The resident requested by email that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 1 November 2023. She disagreed with the decision in the stage 1 response because:
    1. Some of the points raised about the tenancy agreement were irrelevant to the case as the garden is generally well maintained.
    2. The overhanging of the trees was excessive and caused a serious obstruction of the property, as well as root damage to the property.
    3. The trees were a hazard to health and wellbeing, the roots may have caused unseen damage that needed to be inspected.
    4. The damage caused by the tree has resulted in trips and falls for the resident and visitors at the property.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 29 November 2023. It said:
    1. The garden was the resident’s responsibility and her complaints about the trees did not warrant them being pruned or removed.
    2. The tree did appear to have caused damage to the path over time, but the resident had not raised any repairs for the damage before the Right to Buy process started.
    3. A surveyor attended to inspect the property for a Right to Buy valuation in May 2022. He confirmed that the resident had not expressed any concerns to him regarding the tree and path. Nor did he notice anything to cause him concern.
    4. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 December 2023. She disagreed with the landlord’s stance that she was responsible for the maintenance of the trees, especially given her health.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 41.d of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about local authorities in England unless they concern the provision or management of social housing, or the management of properties they own and rent on a long lease. As such we can only look at the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the issue, we will not investigate the parks and countryside department. The resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for assistance with this element of her complaint.
  3. However, the distinction between the parks and countryside department and the landlord in this case is unclear and it is understandable that it has caused confusion for the resident. The council’s website states that trees on council owned land fall under the responsibility of the parks and countryside team, at the time of the complaint the trees were on council owned land. The landlord also quotes the councils’ tree guidance in its complaint responses. This guidance is on the parks and countryside team webpage. The evidence shows that the resident reported the trees to the parks and countryside team in May 2022. As the division between the teams is unclear, we find that the resident had in effect reported it to the landlord.

Maintenance of trees at the property and associated repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden including any trees. However, it is not clear if they have the right to remove any trees that are causing problems. This contradicts the council’s statement that trees on council owned land are the responsibility of the parks and countryside team.
  2. The parks and countryside team’s tree guidance sets out non-actionable nuisance. It will not prune or remove trees for these reasons:
    1. Shading or blocking of light.
    2. Problems linked to leaf fall, blossom or fruit.
    3. Obstruction of views.
    4. Minor root damage that can be repaired without removing the tree.
    5. Where there is a possible risk of it causing root damage, without evidence of damage having happened.

The council in its function as a landlord used this guidance to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It was therefore the landlord’s guidance on trees. These were the problems the resident had raised to the park’s team since May 2022, but despite them being classed as non-actionable, the issue with the path was disrepair and warranted an inspection of the tree and the damage caused.

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in a state of repair. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The repairs policy states that repairs are prioritised based on seriousness. For emergency repairs that pose a threat to safety or security, the response is within 1 hour to 24 hours. For urgent repairs that may cause some inconvenience or would lead to further difficulties if not rectified, the timescale is within 5 working days. Everything else is classed as a routine repair and should be responded to within 30 working days. Given the fact that the damaged path has caused inconvenience and has led to further difficulties with access to the property it is fair to say it should have been responded to as urgent.
  2. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have noticed potential trip hazards to the garden at its visits. On 9 May 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property and conducted a survey for the purposes of the Right to Buy. In later communication the surveyor stated that the resident did not raise any issues with the trees during the inspection. However, he had walked up the steps past the trees and, in line with his role, had received constructive notice on behalf of the landlord of the damaged path and the surrounding trees. The surveyor referred to a photo taken at the inspection and states it shows the tree “and there does appear to be some lifting of the footpath visible”. Given the repair criteria the landlord should have raised an urgent repair for the pathway in May 2022. Indeed the surveyor said he would have reported it to the repairs team if it was raised as an issue. Alternatively, the landlord could have noted the problem in the Right to Buy survey and provided an appropriate deduction from the valuation.
  3. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its ‘Your Right to Buy your home: a guide’ in April 2012, as updated in April 2021. This states that once a Right to Buy application has been submitted, there may be certain repairs and maintenance work that the landlord does not need to carry out anymore. This is because the value is based on the condition of the property on the date of the application. The landlord received the resident’s Right to Buy claim on 25 February 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show what repairs they would consider during the Right to Buy process.
  4. Following the resident raising the trees with the Right to Buy team, the landlord started to act. A housing officer visited the property on 19 October 2023 to speak to the resident (by 24 October 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint). The officer then chased the parks department for a tree inspection. On 8 November 2023 the officer requested a surveyor to look at the damage caused by tree roots. There was resistance from the repairs team to look at the repair request due to the Right to Buy process and their erroneous conclusion that there was no record of repairs being raised previously, however they did agree to send someone to inspect the damage. An appointment was booked for 19 December 2023, however the evidence shows that this was cancelled by the landlord. When the resident queried this, the landlord stated that there was nothing further they could do to assist as the resident was now freeholder of the property. It was inappropriate to mislead the resident and offer an appointment in the first place. This caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience for her.
  5. The landlord failed to act appropriately on the damaged pathway, by the trees, when the resident reported it to the countryside and parks team in May 2022, when its surveyor received constructive notice in May 2022 and when it was raised to the Right to Buy team in October 2024. This amounts to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of request for maintenance of trees at the property and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £700:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord creating confusion about how to report tree related issues.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord misleading the resident about repairs during the Right to Buy process.
      3. £500 for delays caused by the landlord not raising repairs to the path or offering an adjustment to the valuation in May 2022.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider clarifying its stance on repairs during the Right to Buy process within its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord should consider clarifying its procedure for reporting issues with trees.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance for the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.