Peabody Trust (202447629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447629

Peabody Trust

2 October 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:

1. The resident’s reports of an overgrown boundary hedge.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.          The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She has lived in her first floor maisonette since 17 April 2008.

3.          The resident has reported problems with a hedge that runs along the length of her driveway since moving into the property. The issue has worsened since 2012 as she is no longer able to maintain it herself. This relates to the depth of the hedge, which she said encroaches onto her drive. She advised that this makes accessing her vehicle difficult, due to the reduced room to fully open the vehicles side doors.

4.          The resident raised a complaint on 24 February 2025. She stated she had tried to resolve the issue in previous complaints dating back to July 2019 without success. She added that previous resolutions included instructing the neighbour to maintain the hedge, but the landlord did not follow through on this.

5.          The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 March 2025. It did not uphold the complaint as a survey in April 2024 reported the hedge as being well maintained by the neighbour. It also stated the resident previously refused access to allow the hedge to be maintained. It had also reviewed photographs of the hedge provided by the resident which did not change its finding.

6.          The resident escalated the complaint on 12 March 2025. She stated that no one except her gardener had maintained the hedge. She disputed that she had refused access and attributed this to a breakdown in relations with the area manager. She invited the landlord to attend and inspect the issue for itself.

7.           The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 April 2025. It made the following findings:

1. It apologised for the resident’s previous experiences when interacting with its area manager. It acknowledged that this had left the resident with a distrust regarding the findings.
2. It clarified that its policy regarding hedge maintenance only related to communal hedges. As the hedge in question belonged to a neighbouring property, it would contact the neighbour to ensure they maintained the hedge moving forward.
3. The landlord accepted the resident’s offer to visit and see for itself. It advised a member of its monitoring team would be in contact to arrange a convenient time.
4. Due to delays in not escalating the resident’s previous stage 1 complaint from March 2024, it offered £50 compensation for her time and trouble.

8.             The resident referred her complaint to us on 15 April 2025. She stated that even with maintenance, the majority of the hedge growth was located on her property. This would continue to restrict access to her vehicle and prevent her from installing a fence to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9.          The resident is of the view that the landlord allowed her property boundary to be encroached. It is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to make determinations about land disputes. This is a legal matter that should be properly determined by inspection of the land and ordinarily with reference to any documents held by the Land Registry. This would then need to be dealt with through the courts as a civil matter. However, the Ombudsman will consider how the landlord communicated with and addressed the resident’s complaint regarding the matter.

Policies and procedures

10.      The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will log complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.

The resident’s reports of an overgrown boundary hedge

11.      The resident’s lease states that the maintenance of lawns, grass verges, shrubs and trees is the responsibility of the named person on the lease. It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident has been pursuing a resolution to the hedge encroaching her driveway for several years.

12.      The landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports of the hedge causing restrictions in vehicle access in March 2024. Its records state it completed an initial visual inspection of the hedge condition in April 2024. This was an appropriate response and shows the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. We have not seen any evidence of the outcome of the inspection. However, the matter was not raised again until the following year so it was fair for the landlord to assume this was resolved.

13.      On 24 February 2025, the resident advised the landlord that the neighbours responsible for the hedge were not maintaining it. As such, she was now having to employ a gardener to do so at an additional cost to herself. She also included photographs illustrating the extent to which the hedge encroached onto her driveway.

14.      The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 March 2025. It advised that both its initial inspection in April 2024 as well as photographs provided by the resident in March 2025 showed the hedge as being well maintained. Its area manager had also advised that the resident refused permission to access her side of the hedge. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. It was appropriate for it to rely on the evidence it held and information provided by its staff in making its assessment.

15.      However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise on the terms of the lease. This states it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain bushes or other foliage included within their boundary. Its failure to provide this information potentially caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.

16.      The resident refuted the allegation that she had refused access and escalated her complaint to the landlord. She stated that the information provided by the area manager was biased due to a previous breakdown in the relationship between her and the area manager.

17.       In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 11 April 2025, it addressed the allegations of bias and provided assurance to the resident that it took all reports on staff conduct seriously. It also clarified that its responsibility as a landlord only related to maintaining communal hedges and it was not required to maintain the hedge in question.

18.      However, the landlord did commit to discuss maintenance with the neighbour. This was an appropriate response by the landlord in providing reassurance to the resident regarding her reports and to seek a permanent resolution by contacting the neighbour responsible for the hedge.

19.      The landlord also confirmed it would accept the resident’s offer to conduct a further inspection to assess and discuss any possible solutions. The records show this inspection took place on 24 April 2025. Even though its position regarding the hedge remained unchanged, this demonstrates that the landlord followed up on its commitment and was willing to explore all options to resolve the resident’s concerns.

20.      Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the boundary hedge. The records show the landlord reviewed images from different time periods to conclude the hedge was adequately maintained. It also provided relevant information regarding both its and the resident’s responsibilities and visited the site as promised.

The associated complaint

21.      The resident raised her complaint through the Ombudsman on 24 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged this 2 working days later, with its stage 1 response issued on 12 March 2025. The acknowledgement and response from the landlord were within the timescales stated in its complaints policy.

22.      The resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged this 4 working days later, with its stage 2 response issued on 11 April 2025. Both responses were within the landlord’s timescales. This shows the landlord dealt with the complaint in an appropriate and timely manner.

23.      The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation within its stage 2 response. We welcome and encourage landlords to put things right and learn from complaints. As the landlord identified a failing within the handling of a previous complaint, it is positive that it reflected on this and awarded compensation.

24.      Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Throughout the process, it responded effectively and demonstrated a fair approach to the complaint.

Determination

25.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown boundary hedge.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

26.         If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation that it offered at stage 2.

27.      The landlord should write to the resident and neighbouring property within 4 weeks of this report to clarify its position regarding the maintenance for the hedge. It should also consider how it will monitor this and address concerns if the neighbour does not continue maintenance.