Waltham Forest Council (202212014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212014

Waltham Forest Council

7 March 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:
    1. response to the resident’s request to remove a tree outside her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a house.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 24 July 2021, relating to the landlord’s management of a tree outside her property. The complaint included:
    1. The condition of the tree was a health and safety issue as raised roots had lifted concrete slabs causing a trip hazard.
    2. Sap from the tree had caused damage to her car.
    3. The resident had been informed in 2020 following an inspection by the landlord that the tree would be removed, however, no further works had taken place.
    4. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the tree was removed and replaced with a more suitable tree.
  3. In its formal complaint responses, the landlord included the following:
    1. It apologised for initially incorrectly treating the resident’s complaint as a service request and not providing a full complaint response at stage one.
    2. It explained that following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on, it had undertaken a full investigation of the issues and arranged for an inspection of the tree.
    3. It apologised for providing incorrect information at stage one stating that the tree had been pruned in 2020. It confirmed that the tree had been inspected in June 2013, May 2016, July 2018 and September 2020. It explained that a general pruning of the tree was recommended following the 2020 inspection. As this work was not considered urgent or essential, the housing officer had not raised a work order and the pruning would have occurred as part of the next scheduled maintenance programme in 2022/23.
    4. It provided the resident with a copy of the 2 August 2022 inspection report, which stated that the tree was “in good health with no pest, disease or significant structural defect. There is some low hanging foliage which is recommended for removal during routine works which are scheduled for 2022-23 financial year. The tree does not meet criteria to have works carried out on it outside of this scheduled program.” The landlord confirmed that the work to the tree would be carried out later in the year.
    5. It noted that the inspection report had stated that it had found “no damage to the footpath, but there is slight lifting of the slabs on the drive of [the neighbour’s property].” The landlord informed the resident that the disturbance to the slabs was to the decorative paving and not part of the footpath and had been passed on to its housing team.
    6. It explained that it would not consider any damage to the resident’s personal items as part of the complaint process, as issues of liability were dealt with by its insurance provider. The landlord provided the resident with information on how to make a claim against its insurance if she felt it was at fault for any damage caused to her car or for any personal injury to her or her family.
    7. It advised that it had declined the resident’s request to remove the tree as it had found no valid reason to do so.
  4. In referring the complaint to this service, the resident stated that the outstanding issues of the complaint were that she had received no compensation for the inconvenience the matter had caused and that she had not been provided with a timescale as to when the pruning work would occur. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that she receive suitable compensation that reflected the time and convenience that issue had caused, and that the landlord remove the tree.
  5. On 15 September 2022, the landlord advised this service that it had undertaken a review of its complaint and had subsequently offered the resident £200 compensation. The landlord broke the compensation down as £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident in pursing the complaint, and £100 for the distress the matter had caused. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 22 September 2022 to make the compensation offer and informed her that it hoped to undertake the pruning work within six weeks.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s 2017-2022 tree strategy document sets out its framework for the planning and management of its trees. The overview of the document states that “alongside continuing our commitment to increasing the total number of trees in our urban forest, we also aim to adopt the very best management practices to ensure that existing trees remain healthy and do not become a nuisance or a danger to people or property.”
  2. Section 6.2 of the document relates to maintenance and surveying. This states that:
    1. “[The landlord] will maintain all its trees ensuring works are to the ‘British Standards for Tree Work’ – BS 3998 2010 where possible.
    2. “[The landlord] will maintain those trees in need of maintenance on a cyclical basis to ensure its duty of care is maintained. We will also ensure that the highway and adjacent structures remain unobstructed and free from overgrown branches causing damage.
    3. “Trees will be allocated a priority and surveyed according to the following frequencies:
      1. At least once every three years: Playgrounds, town centres and main roads.
      2. At least once every five years: Housing estates and local roads.
      3. No formal inspection unless an issue is found: Parks, woodlands and other locations.”
  3. Section 6.3 of the document relates to felling and pruning of trees. This states that the landlord will “only fell trees for sound arboriculture such as:
    1. “Dead, dying or dangerous;
    2. “Proven to be causing significant structural damage;
    3. “Considered by the Tree Service to be inappropriate species for the location;
    4. “Trees that are implicated in structural damage where no remedial action suffices.”
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should consider financial redress for a complainant’s time and trouble where “the time and trouble taken by the complainant in pursuing the complaint exceeds the minor costs that would routinely be expected. Time and trouble payments are not the same as distress caused by the [the landlord’s] actions.” The policy defines distress as “[including] anxiety, inconvenience, frustration, worry, outrage, raised expectations, lost opportunity and uncertainty caused to the complainant. The amount of compensation awarded will need to take into account all the circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time during which it occurred, the number of people affected and the personal circumstances of those affected.” The policy recommends a payment of £100 to £300 for each of these elements.

Tree

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of the tree. As noted above, the landlord’s tree strategy document states it will ensure that trees do not become a nuisance or danger to people or property. Given that the resident raised concerns that the tree had caused a trip hazard and that the sap was causing a nuisance, the landlord had a responsibility to investigate these reports.
  2. Following the resident’s reports, (after some delay, discussed below) the landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection of the tree. Based on its inspection, it found that the tree was in good health and that the current programme for pruning the tree was sufficient for keeping it well maintained. The landlord appropriately articulated the findings of the report to the resident and also provided her with a copy of the report, which the Ombudsman considers best practice in the circumstances.
  3. The resident has reported that the landlord informed her that the tree would be removed. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s position, based on the evidence available, it was reasonable for the landlord not to concur that it had agreed to remove the tree. Given that there was also confusion about the most recent pruning, it was also appropriate that the landlord provided a detailed history of the inspections carried out on the tree. While it may have been the case that pruning was recommended in 2020, given that the works were not urgent or essential, it was reasonable for the landlord to delay the works to the next scheduled pruning.
  4. The landlord also carried out an appropriate investigation of the resident’s safety concerns regarding the foot path, and that the issues identified did not pose an immediate risk, but that it had nevertheless alerted its housing team for further action.
  5. Given the resident’s concerns about potential damage to her personal property, it was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with its insurer’s details, which the Ombudsman considers the appropriate method to assess such claims.
  6. In summary, the landlord carried out an appropriate investigation of the resident’s concerns, which it articulated clearly in its formal responses. Given that its inspection determined the tree was healthy, it was reasonable that it did not remove the tree, and that it provided the resident with relevant information about the next scheduled works, along with its insurer’s details.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord has accepted that it did not properly investigate the complaint at stage one of the complaint process. The landlord explained that the complaint was incorrectly responded to as a service request and no investigation into the elements raised by the resident took place. This resulted in a delay in arranging an inspection of the tree and incorrect information being given to the resident that the tree had been pruned in 2020.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation, and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by undertaking a full investigation of all the elements of the resident’s complaint, offering £200 compensation for its service failures, and arranging for an inspection of the tree to be undertaken. It looked to learn from its mistakes by giving additional training to its staff members in order that a similar mistake did not occur in the future. An internal landlord email sent on 29 July 2022 noted that the staff member who had originally responded to the resident’s complaint had met with senior management and had received training on when to respond to a complaint as a service request and when to respond through the landlord’s formal complaint process.
  3. The landlord’s compensation offer was made in line with its compensation policy detailed above. It is also broadly in line the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Payments of £100 that recognised the time and trouble caused by the delay in fully investigating the complaint and a further £100 for the distress caused to the resident in having to progress a complaint in order to reach a resolution to the matter were therefore reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s request to remove a tree outside her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation, it is recommended that the landlord reiterates this offer to the resident if it is yet to be accepted.