Southern Housing Group Limited (202221158)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221158

Southern Housing Group Limited

9 June 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s pruning of trees in communal areas during the summer.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord of a flat in a block with shared communal areas containing gardens and trees.
  2. In February 2022, the landlord responded to another resident’s request for it to carry out further pruning to the largest trees at the back of the resident’s block by explaining that it was reviewing the trees on the site, and that it had asked its estate team for plans for the trees. The resident then raised concerns with it by at least 18 May 2022 that it was inappropriately pruning trees that were not dormant within the block’s communal areas during the summer on 18 to 20 and 23 May 2022, which was contrary to Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) advice about what was best for wildlife.
  3. The resident subsequently confirmed to the landlord on 9 June 2022 that he had been raising his concerns as a complaint. He complained that its gardeners were not properly trained and had cut the trees in the incorrect months, which had damaged their appearance and killed off wildlife, contrary to legislation recommending dormant tree pruning earlier or later in the year in order to protect live birds’ nests. The resident sought for the landlord to admit that this was a mistake, and for it to learn from this and never repeat its tree pruning during the summer again.
  4. The landlord both accepted the resident’s complaint as an “informal complaint” and issued its response to this on 15 June 2022. It explained that it was also focused on concerns about wildlife, and that this was why it used qualified tree surgeons when pruning communal trees, who had acted in line with the correct procedure that it would continue to monitor the trees for. The landlord additionally explained that, while it was illegal to work in trees with active nests with eggs or chicks, nests that were in the process of being built or that were from a previous season were not regarded as active, with the “vigorous” species of communal trees being able to be pruned at almost any time.
  5. The resident formally escalated his complaint on 30 June 2022, being unhappy that his complaint was unresolved and seemed to be “blocked” by the landlord, complaining that its summer pruning was preventing the trees from dealing with heat, producing oxygen, and growing leaves. He therefore requested more “competent” gardeners from it, and tree pruning either earlier or later in the year.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation as a stage one complaint on 4 July 2022, for which it issued its response on 18 July 2022. It explained that it had spoken to its tree surgeons, who had carried out necessary tree works in accordance with the law and at an appropriate time of year, and it reiterated the contents of its “informal complaint” response.
  7. The resident then made a final stage complaint to the landlord from 18 July 2022, for which he provided it with photographs for its final stage review panel meeting. He added that its tree pruning was preventing new leaves from providing wildlife, fresh air and shade, and that weather reports and high temperatures meant that this was being done at the worst possible time in summer instead of in winter. The resident also stated that legislation confirmed that the main bird breeding season was between 1 March and 31 July, and so this was at risk of being breached by the landlord’s tree pruning between these dates.
  8. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint review panel meeting on 31 August 2022, and its final stage complaint response on 14 September 2022, did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It added that, while it agreed that trees were generally better pruned in winter and the communal trees provided good shade, their species’ greater regeneration permitted pruning almost all year round and needed to be managed to prevent damage to his building.
  9. The landlord additionally confirmed that its full visual survey before the pruning had confirmed that there were no active birds’ nests in the communal trees in accordance with legislation. It also stated that there was a risk to the health of the trees, and to health and safety, from them having too much foliage and shedding limbs in the increased temperatures and lack of rainfall, unless they were pruned.
  10. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord’s tree pruning was contrary to legislation, its procedures and good practice, and that it had initially failed to answer his complaint or accept his complaint about its complaint handling. He added that its summer pruning had not left any appropriate foliage for wildlife or shade, of which he had provided photographs, and he disputed the competence of its gardeners because of this. The resident additionally confirmed that he was still dissatisfied with the outcome of his previous complaint to this Service about a water leak from a neighbouring flat damaging his property, and with the accuracy of the information that the landlord had provided to us about this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident has explained that he remains unhappy with the outcome of his previous complaint to this Service regarding a water leak at his property, this complaint has already been decided upon by us, and so is outside the scope of this investigation. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which confirms that we may not consider complaints that seek to raise again matters that we have already decided upon.

The landlord’s pruning of trees in communal areas during the summer

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s communal tree pruning in the summer of 2022 was contrary to RHS advice, legislation, its procedures, and good practice regarding what was best for wildlife, including that the main bird breeding season was between 1 March and 31 July. It therefore responded to his concerns by considering these, including its tree management policy.
  2. In accordance with its tree management policy, the landlord is required to maintain the trees in the communal areas of the resident’s block and external spaces. It is obliged to ensure that anyone on the grounds is safe from dangerous trees or parts of trees, and from trees causing damage to property.
  3. The landlord’s tree management policy also confirms that it will carry out tree surveys to identify any risks and work required, not maintain or remove trees during the bird nesting season from February to August unless there are exceptional circumstances, and will assess whether the tree is clear of birds before doing so. It will, however, prune trees on its communal land as necessary when they are dangerous or when they may damage property, with all communal tree work carried out by competent arborists specified in accordance with the British Standard for tree work.
  4. In this case, the landlord acted fairly and proportionately in response to the concerns the resident raised that it had not carried out the tree pruning in his block in summer 2022 correctly, threatening the shade, appearance and wildlife of the trees there. It did so by investigating his concerns in line with its tree management policy, informing him in its complaint responses that its qualified tree surgeons had explained that the pruning was necessary due to the specific species of tree, which were able to be pruned at almost any time.
  5. The landlord added that it was focused on concerns about wildlife, monitored the trees for active nests before pruning, and its full visual survey before the pruning in the summer of 2022 had confirmed that no active birds’ nests were found in the communal trees, in accordance with legislation. While it is noted that the resident disputed this, there was no evidence provided that contradicted this, and it was reasonable for it to rely on the expert findings of its qualified tree surgeons, particularly in the absence of any expert or other evidence to the contrary that the pruning had disturbed local wildlife.
  6. Additionally, the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations under its tree management policy by confirming with its tree surgeons that the communal trees’ species’ greater regeneration needed to be managed with pruning. This was because they were more likely to shed limbs in the increased temperatures and lack of rainfall during the summer of 2022, presenting a health and safety risk, and required more maintenance than other species to prevent any potential risks of damage to the resident’s building. The landlord also highlighted that this was to protect the health of the trees from having too much foliage.
  7. While the resident additionally disputed these findings, it was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its qualified tree surgeons regarding the condition of the trees, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary. Moreover, this meant that it complied with its obligation under the tree management policy to ensure that people and property were safe from dangerous trees or parts of trees on its communal land. These were additionally exceptional circumstances, for which its policy permitted the landlord to maintain the communal trees during the bird nesting season from February to August.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Under the landlord’s complaints resolution policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, it was to firstly try to resolve issues informally outside of its formal complaints process within an unspecified timescale. If the resident remained unhappy or wished to raise a formal complaint, then it was required to respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. When a complaint was subsequently escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure, the landlord was to arrange a final stage review panel meeting on a set date within an unspecified timescale, and to deliver its final stage complaint response within ten working days of the meeting.
  2. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s concerns in relation to its handling of his case by at least 18 May 2022, which he confirmed to it was a complaint on 9 June 2022, with it accepting and responding to this as an “informal complaint” on 15 June 2022. This initially accorded with its complaints resolution policy at the time by trying to resolve the issue informally outside of its complaints process, but it is of concern that, while its response timescale at that stage was unspecified, it took 18 working days to respond to him. This was an inappropriately lengthy period in which to try and resolve an issue informally, which also exceeded the policy’s timescales for the formal stages of the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. Moreover, the resident had informed the landlord that he wished to raise a complaint by at least 9 June 2022, but it failed to deal with this formally as a stage one complaint at that time, contrary to its obligation to do so under its complaints resolution policy. This was unreasonable and unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process for him, after he had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction to it in the form of a complaint, so that this was less likely to be resolved by it informally.
  4. The resident’s subsequent stage one complaint of 30 June 2022 was responded to by the landlord on 18 July 2022, which was two working days later than its complaints resolution policy’s ten-working-day stage one response timescale. Following his final stage complaint of 18 July 2022, it arranged a final stage complaint review panel meeting 31 working days later on 31 August 2022, issuing its final stage complaint response on 14 September 2022, which was within the ten working days required by the policy.
  5. It is nevertheless also concerning that the landlord took another unnecessarily lengthy period of 31 working days to arrange the resident’s final stage complaint review panel meeting, which further prolonged the complaints process for him. While its complaints resolution policy did not specify a timescale for it to arrange the meeting, the length of time that it took to do so was unsuitable and exceeded the other timescales in the policy, particularly when combined with its other failings in prolonging his complaint.
  6. The landlord additionally did not acknowledge, explain or attempt to remedy its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case to try and put things right. This was inappropriate and contrary to this Service’s previous complaint handling code, which it was required to comply with at the time of the resident’s complaint, including by publishing response timescales for each stage of its complaints process.
  7. Where failings are identified, it is the role of this Service to consider redress to resolve the complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, our remedies guidance, and the landlord’s compensation procedure.
  8. The landlord’s compensation procedure and this Service’s remedies guidance recommend apologies and discretionary compensation payments of £50 to £100 to recognise residents’ unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. This includes from delays in getting matters resolved that it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge, apologise for and explain its poor complaint handling in his case, as well as to pay him £100 compensation in recognition of any unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that he experienced as a result of this.
  9. It is also noted that the landlord’s previous complaints resolution policy included an extra named “informal” pre-complaint stage that lacked a response timescale, together with its final stage complaint review panel meetings, which was contrary to this Service’s current complaint handling code that was already in effect at that time. However, we then permitted it six months to become compliant with our current complaint handling code, and its current complaints policy has now removed its “informal complaint” stage in favour of a two-stage formal complaints procedure, with response timescales at each stage of its complaints process, which was appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s pruning of trees in communal areas during the summer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within four weeks to acknowledge, apologise for and explain its poor complaint handling in his case.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks in recognition of any unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that he experienced as a result of its poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.