Onward Homes Limited (202228606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228606

Onward Homes Limited

5 November 2024

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 concerns regarding a conifer tree in front of his property.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident made a formal complaint on 31 January 2023, stating that he had contacted the landlord multiple times about the confiner tree outside his property. He said the tree was obstructing his view, stopping natural light from entering his flat and spoiling his enjoyment of living in his flat. He requested for the landlord to remove or cut down the conifer tree.
4. In its stage 1 response of 16 February 2023, the landlord stated that it was not able to remove the conifer tree because the tree was not in breach of its tree policy. It said the tree was healthy, not touching any flats and not causing any foundation issues.
5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 16 February 2023. He reiterated his previous concerns and added that the tree posed a security risk as he was unable to check his car because the tree covered most of his left window. He described other impact to him and the property.
6. In its stage 2 response of 17 March 2023, the landlord stated that in accordance with its tree policy it would not prune or remove trees. It said that the tree was not a security risk or a potential hazard. It had inspected the tree and confirmed it was healthy, not touching the property and not causing any foundation issues. It said it could not transplant the tree because it was already mature. It apologised and offered £50 in recognition of the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service as he was unhappy that the landlord refused to cut or remove the conifer tree.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. The resident stated that he has raised concerns about the lack of maintenance of the conifer tree since 2021. Under Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. For complaints for which the landlord issued its final response before 1 April 2024, the Scheme referred to the ‘reasonable period’ as being within 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from July 2023 to 17 March 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
9. The resident reported that his health has been negatively affected by the presence of the conifer tree. It is outside the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme which states that we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused him.

Concerns around the conifer tree

10. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining any grassed areas, gardens, or floral area within the common parts.
11. The landlord has a tree safety policy which encourages the growth of trees and shrubbery. The policy states: It will only prune or remove trees if they are dead, dying, or diseased, dangerous (i.e. through storm damage), causing damage, or likely to cause damage to property, breaking highway regulations, or identified as part of its maintenance programme. It will not prune trees if they are blocking sunlight or obstructing views.
12. The tree policy also states that residents should not prune or remove any trees on land owned by the landlord, including in resident’s gardens, open spaces, or shared areas. The policy states it would attend an inspection for routine tree works within 28 days and act if required.
13. It is unclear when the resident first raised his concerns around the maintenance of the conifer tree to the landlord. The landlord’s records show it was communicating with the resident about his concerns about the tree from 14 September 2022. On 14 September 2022, it informed him that the conifer tree was in a communal area, and it was responsible for its maintenance. It completed a tree inspection on 5 January 2023. The landlord said the tree was in good condition and it did not require further action.
14. According to the landlord’s tree policy, it would arrange an inspection within 28 days of a tree issue report. The landlord did not complete an inspection until 5 January 2023, more than 85 days outside its policy time limit. This was a shortcoming which it should have apologised for as the delay was outside its policy requirement.
15. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s tree inspection report that it did not require any further action. In his formal complaint of 31 January 2023, he said that the tree was growing extremely fast, obstructing his window view, stopping natural light from entering his flat and spoiling his enjoyment of living in his flat.
16. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response of 16 February 2023,stated that it surveyed all trees on a 3-year cyclical basis and following the resident’s correspondence it arranged for its tree specialist to inspect the tree. It said the tree was not in breach of its tree policy. The tree was healthy and not touching any flats or causing any foundation issues. It confirmed that it would not remove the tree. The landlord’s inspection report of 5 January 2023 showed that the tree was healthy and not causing any issues, therefore its response was appropriate and in line with its tree policy.
17. This Service notes that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not specifically address the resident’s comments around his enjoyment of his property being impacted by the presence of the tree. Although, the landlord did not specifically address this issue, this Service agrees that the landlord’s actions showed it took the resident’s complaint seriously. Furthermore, this Service has not seen any expert advice confirming that the resident’s right of enjoyment of the use of the property has been affected by the presence of the tree, thus we cannot conclude on this issue. The resident can seek legal advice on this specific claim if he wishes to as it is not clear to this Service, from the evidence provided, that the landlord has not adhered to the terms of the resident’s lease.
18. The resident in his escalation request of 16 February 2023 stated that the tree posed security risks, it could be a potential hazard during windy weather when it swayed in front of cars, he said he might not be able to sell his house because of the tree and the presence of the tree was having a negative impact on his mental health and wellbeing especially as he was undergoing medical treatment. He requested for the landlord to remove the tree from outside his flat, failing that, he asked if it would cut down or trim the tree.
19. The landlord’s internal correspondence of 17 February 2023 shows it contacted its tree specialist enquiring about the possibility of transplanting the tree and if pruning was required. The tree specialist advised that the tree was at a matured stage, it would lose its root system, and the tree would not survive if the landlord transplanted it. The specialist explained that they had inspected the tree and it did not require any pruning. The landlord showed it was willing to find alternative solutions to the issues experienced by the resident by exploring the possibility of transplanting and pruning the tree.
20. Furthermore, in the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 March 2023, it adequately addressed all of the resident’s concerns raised in his escalation request. It assured him that it had not received any reports showing that the trees have a negative impact on property sales. It apologised for any stress caused to the resident and offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
21. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
22. The landlord apologised and tried to put things right for the resident by exploring the possibility of transplanting the tree, and it provided reasonable explanations in relation to the resident’s concerns around the conifer tree. This Service notes that the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for the delay in completing the inspection. However, the delay did not cause a detriment on the resident at a level as to warrant a finding of maladministration.
23. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the conifer tree satisfactorily.