Peabody Trust (202314745)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with a private garden. She complained to the landlord about damage to her patio caused by tree roots coming from the neighbouring garden. Another landlord owns the neighbouring property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damage caused by a tree in a neighbouring garden.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident which resolved the failings in its handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of damage caused by a tree
   2. the complaint.

Summary of reasons

Tree

5. There was a delay in the landlord inspecting the tree and initially it was not clear about the action it would take. However, it apologised for this and offered compensation that we feel offers reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

6. There was a long delay in the landlord providing a stage 1 complaint response and a shorter delay in it providing the stage 2 complaint response. However, it apologised and offered compensation that we feel offered reasonable redress in the circumstances.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says that leaseholders are responsible for maintenance of individual gardens, patios, and trees unless the lease states otherwise.
8. The resident’s lease shows that the property includes a private garden. It contains no specific clauses about the maintenance of the garden.
9. There is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord in 2021 to express her dissatisfaction about leaves from the neighbouring tree falling into her garden. The landlord advised her that a 3rd party owned the tree and therefore it had no responsibility for it. This was appropriate advice in the circumstances.
10. In 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and the neighbouring landlord about the tree. The landlord emailed the neighbouring landlord and asked it to ensure that the tree branches were cut back. The landlord was not obliged to do this but in doing so it showed that it supported the resident.
11. The resident emailed a complaint to the landlord about the tree on 4 August 2023 but we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this. This failure cost her time and trouble chasing the landlord and contacting us for assistance. As she expressed concerns that the tree was damaging the property it would have been appropriate for the landlord to visit the property but it failed to do so for a further 5 months and only after we had contacted it. This was a failing.
12. The landlord visited the property on 2 February 2024 to assess the damage caused by the tree. The officer noted that the resident said that the tree blocked the light, was close to the property boundary, and dropped leaves and blossom. They said that they made it clear that these reasons would not be sufficient for removing the tree or carrying out work to it. However, to prevent further lifting of slabs they recommended lifting 2 rows of slabs, digging a trench along the boundary line severing the roots, installing a root protection barrier, and pruning the tree to the boundary line.
13. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that the officer that completed the visit was not aware that the resident was a leaseholder and responsible for completing this work herself. This led to confusion because the resident thought that the landlord would take further action. This failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord then advised her in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that it was not responsible for completing any work to the tree or patio. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
14. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its unclear communication and the delay. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where there was a failing which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case as the landlord acknowledged its failings and made attempts to put them right, we feel this offers reasonable redress in the circumstances. We have made a recommendation that the landlord pays this sum if it has not already done so.

15. The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, action, or lack of action by the organisation, employees or those acting on its behalf. It says that residents can report complaints in different ways including by telephone, online webform, and in person.
16. The complaint’s policy also says that it logs new complaints within 5 working days and provides a response within a further 10 working days unless it agrees an extension with the resident. All the above is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code).
17. In this case the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint when she emailed it on 4 August 2023 and then also failed to respond when she completed a webform on 16 December 2023. This cost her time and trouble because she contacted this Service for assistance.
18. Overall, it took the landlord 133 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy also says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving the request. It says that it will communicate with the resident if it needs to extend this time limit.
20. In this case, however, the landlord took 26 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint and we have seen no evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident. This caused her further inconvenience and further delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
21. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling and also apologised. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £100 are appropriate where a complaint response has been delayed by more than several days which adversely affected the resident. As the landlord acknowledged its failings and attempted to put things right, we consider that it offered reasonable redress in the circumstances. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this sum if it has not already done so.

Learning

22. The landlord should ensure that officers that carry out inspections are aware of the tenancy status of residents so that they provide appropriate advice at the time.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. None identified.

Communication

24. The landlord should have communicated more effectively what its responsibilities were at an earlier stage.
25. The landlord should also have communicated with the resident about the delays in its complaint handling.