Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202200574)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200574

Greenwich Council

25 January 2023


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 decision not to cut back a tree in the communal garden next to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord and the property is a second-floor flat. Access to the property is via an external staircase with four flights of stairs.
  2. The resident first informed the landlord on 4 September 2020 that the tree in the communal garden next to her property was blocking sunlight to her property. She noted that the tree had been cut back in the past but she wanted it to be cut back further. The landlord inspected the tree and informed her on 17 December 2020 that the tree would not be cut back as it exhibited no defects and there was no proven damage to property caused by it. The resident and landlord corresponded between 1 February and 26 May 2021 during which it confirmed there were no plans to cut back the tree.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 18 October 2021 about the tree which was blocking out sunlight to her property. She said that she had fallen in the past because of the leaves from the tree. The resident contended that the leaf–fall was blocking the drainage in the block and she was experiencing dampness in her property because of a drain pipe going through her property which would get damp in the rain. The resident said that the fear of falling was causing her significant distress and anxiety and she was considering moving as a result.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 29 October 2021 explained that the tree would not be cut back or removed, citing the environmental benefits of the presence of the tree. It explained that trees were only cut back when they were diseased or were proved to be damaging property. The landlord detailed the undesirable effects from cutting back the tree and recommended regular leaf clearance; it did not specify who should carry this out.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 November 2021, repeating her concerns about leaf–fall blocking the drainage and causing a fall–hazard. She added that the communal staircase was poorly lit and reiterated that she had experienced two previous falls due to the excess water caused by the blocked drains and poor lighting. The resident asserted that cutting back the tree would resolve the issues she highlighted. The landlord’s final complaint response on 22 December 2021 upheld its previous decision about not cutting back the tree. It added that it had forwarded the matter to the manager responsible for estate management to ensure appropriate leaf and drain clearance was carried out.
  6. The resident informed this Service on 23 May 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to cut back the tree. She highlighted the hazard posed to her by its leaf fall on the external staircase which was exacerbated by the poor drainage and lighting.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to cut back a tree in the communal garden next to the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s housing management of trees policy states that when it receives a request for work to a tree, it will carry out an initial inspection within ten working days or within two hours in an emergency where a tree is judged to be imminently hazardous or has failed. This policy also confirms that the landlord will not cut back or remove trees because of:

Falling leaves,

Obstruction of view/blockage of light,

Concerns over future building subsidence or unproven structural damage.

  1. Given that there was no evidence of proven structural damage or that the tree was defective, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy above in deciding not to cut back the tree. Its stage one and final stage complaint responses to the resident provided reasonable explanations for its decision. These were specifically that: there were no defects which presented a health and safety risk; the tree provided environmental benefits such as improvement of air quality; and that excessive cutting back of the tree would prompt a “vigorous growth response” which would negate any short-term benefit.
  2. Therefore, there was no failure by the landlord in its decision not to cut back the tree. This was because the resident’s concerns over leaf–fall and blockage of light were covered by the landlord’s housing management of trees policy which did not permit cutting back or removal of a tree for these reasons.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. While it responded reasonably and in accordance with policy to the resident’s request for the tree to be cut back, it failed to address all the issues she raised in her complaint.
  2. On the face of it, the complaint was about the resident’s request to have the tree cut back. However, this resolution was sought by the resident because the substance of her complaint included her concerns over safety; this was inadequately responded to by the landlord.
  3. The resident’s complaints at stage one and the final stage mentioned that she had sustained falls due to a combination of leaf–fall, which blocked the external drainage, and poor lighting in the communal external stairwell. A landlord has a duty in accordance with the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards in its properties through the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). A hazard specified in this system is the hazard of falls associated with stairs where the change in level is greater than 300mm. The external staircase leading to the resident’s property was made up of four flights of stairs and therefore would be included within this hazard description.
  4. A further hazard specified by the HHSRS is that of “threats to mental and physical health associated with inadequate natural or artificial lighting, including the psychological effects associated with the view from the property through glazing”. The resident’s stage one complaint escalation specifically mentioned that she “got no sunlight” and that she had been receiving mental health support. The landlord failed to acknowledge both potential hazards in its complaint responses.
  5. While the landlord said in its final stage complaint response that it would highlight the need for an appropriate level of leaf and drain clearance around the resident’s block, it did not specifically acknowledge that potential hazards may exist. When the landlord was alerted to these issues it would have been reasonable for it to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property with a view to determining whether these hazards were present and carry any work that was within its responsibility as a landlord to mitigate these hazards. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord to address the complaint fully.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that the stage one complaint was responded to by the same staff member responsible for tree management whom the resident had been corresponding with from the outset. This was a source of dissatisfaction for the resident. The Code highlights that landlords should have a designated complaints officer; this is because “residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is competent, empathetic and efficient”. A response from a dedicated complaints officer may have identified the substantive issues raised in the complaint; instead opportunities were missed at both stages of the complaints process to address the resident’s safety concerns. A recommendation will be made about this below.
  7. The resident went on to raise a further complaint with the landlord about blocked drainage and lighting in the stairwell; the landlord provided a final response to this on 9 March 2022, approximately three months after the final response to this original complaint. The landlord’s incomplete response to the original complaint, therefore, necessitated further involvement from the resident and led to a delay in the resolution of the issues she raised. Compensation should therefore be paid to her of £150 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of this.
  8. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which specifies that compensation amounts of between £50 and £250 may be awarded for an instance of failure which had an impact on the resident but which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to cut back a tree in the communal garden next to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

 

 

 

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord is to pay the resident the amount of £150 compensation. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service by the same date.
  2. Within 28 days, the landlord is to provide a written response to the resident’s complaint points relating to the damp and a leak by the pipework and the blocked drain on the flat roof.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to review its procedures for handling complaints to ensure that all aspects of complaints are considered appropriately in its investigation. 
  2. During the summer of 2023, the landlord should carry out an inspection of the resident’s property and individual circumstances to assess the potential hazards associated with a lack of natural light in the property (in order to properly assess the resident’s individual circumstances, she will need to provide the landlord with supporting evidence from a medical practitioner).