Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202424047)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424047

Yorkshire Housing Limited

30 September 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 the removal of trees from the resident’s garden.

  Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 28 May 2012. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident has vulnerabilities. The landlord has a flag on her account showing the resident has physical disabilities. The resident has dementia and told us she recently had a stroke resulting in some short-term memory loss.
  3. The resident’s neighbour will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed the tenancy terms will be the same.
  4. The landlord received a report from Tenant A on 21 June 2022, the trees in the rear garden of Tenant A were overgrown and needed pruning. A surveyor inspection took place on 29 November 2022. The inspection determined the trees were safe and in good health. The inspection report recommended the conifers should be felled.
  5. The landlord’s records do not show when the trees were felled. However, on 29 May 2024 it attended to complete the removal of the tree stumps. The resident called the landlord on 6 June 2024 to say it had not informed her of its intention to remove the conifer trees.
  6. The resident made a complaint on 3 July 2024 about the felling of the trees. The resident said the landlord had removed the trees on the boundary between her and her neighbour. The place manager had apologised but the apology was made too late as the landlord should have contacted her before the trees were felled. The landlord offered as a resolution to replace the trees with fencing. In response, the resident advised she was happy for it to proceed.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2024. The landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of communication by its grounds maintenance team (GMT) before the trees in the garden were removed. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered redress of £200.
  8. The landlord’s contractor informed the landlord on 3 September 2024 that the resident would not allow access for it to install fencing along the garden’s boundary.
  9. The following day 4 September 2024, the resident informed the landlord how much the garden meant to her. The resident said she attended the conifer trees every day and now could not do so as the trees had been removed. The resident maintained the landlord had acted unlawfully as when its GMT acted there were birds nesting in the trees. The resident also said the stress of its actions had caused her to have a stroke and she found its compensation offer insulting. The resident requested a face-to-face meeting.
  10. On 6 September 2024 the resident called the landlord to say she was unaware the complaint was closed in July 2024. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident maintained the landlord had committed a crime as when the trees were cut down there was birds nesting in the trees. Also, its surveyor had admitted to making a mistake regarding the felling of the conifer trees. After this, the resident said the surveyor left the organisation.
  11. In response, on 9 September 2024 the landlord registered the resident’s Stage 2 complaint and told the resident it would respond to her concerns within 20 working days.
  12. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 24 September 2024. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and its Stage 1 complaint response and determined its outcome was fair. Also, the compensation awarded was in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also:
    1. Said it had not agreed to the resident’s request for a further visit by its GMT. This was because they had already attended and offered help and advice to the resident.
    2. Agreed for a surveyor to check the bottom boundary of the garden and it would arrange a convenient appointment.
    3. Signposted the resident to the local council to discuss her concerns regarding the felling of the trees during the nesting season. It explained this was because the council was responsible for the management of trees and tree protection.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and escalated her complaint to us. The resident expressed the landlord’s decision to remove the trees had limited her ability to access the trees and enjoy the wildlife. This was important to her. The resident’s preferred outcome was for the compensation to be increased.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said the landlord’s decision to remove the conifer trees caused her to have a stroke. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction can have a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. The ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the complaint. These matters are likely best suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless the investigation will consider distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Removal of trees from the resident’s garden.

  1. The landlord’s tree policy recognised the importance of its green spaces to its residents and that trees play a vital habitat for birds, animals and insects.
  2. Looking at the facts of the case, Tenant A contacted the landlord in November 2022 to request it resolve the branches overhanging in her garden. A surveyor inspection took place on 29 November 2022 which found the conifer trees to constitute a low hazard. However, a recommendation was made to fell the conifer trees. It was reasonable the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response of 26 July 2024 the trees were within the resident’s garden and it should have contacted the resident before felling them. The landlord has also recognised the boundary to the resident’s property was not in the correct position.
  3. Our Complaint Handling Code advises landlords to find an early resolution to resident’s concerns. The landlord acted in line with this when in its complaints review it accepted its GMT had made an error when it attended to remove the conifer trees. The landlord recognised it had missed the opportunity to communicate with the resident and inform her of its intention to carry out the works. For this it sincerely apologised and offered to put things right by replanting the hedge of conifers and to reinstate the boundary. However, the resident did not agree to the offers made by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s hazard identification and risk assessment sheet regarding tree work acknowledges the importance of having trained staff. The sheet says before carrying out any work members of the tree team should be trained. The resident complained the removal of the trees occurred during nesting season and the landlord did not take steps to ensure nesting birds were not disturbed. The resident described finding nesting boxes in her garden after the conifer trees were removed. The landlord in its complaint review did not address the resident’s specific concerns about this, despite its tree policy saying it should not fell any tree that contained nesting birds.
  5. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show before the trees were removed a visual survey of the trees took place to confirm the trees was free of nesting birds. Given the lack of records, it is not possible to establish whether the landlord acted with the appropriate thoroughness and used operatives with relevant expertise when the trees were felled. This is a failing as the landlord has not demonstrated it acted in line with its tree policy and this caused distress to the resident.
  6. The landlord signposted the resident to the local council to obtain advice about its actions regarding her assertions it had acted unlawfully. While the local council may be able to provide such advice, the landlord should have taken responsibility to confirm whether its GMT had acted in line with its obligations including contact with the local council. This would have gone some way to reassure the resident that reasonable steps had been taken to protect the birds or any wildlife when the trees were removed. This landlord has not provided any evidence to show it assessed whether its Tree policy was followed when the conifer trees were felled. This was not reasonable.
  7. The landlord demonstrated it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the importance of the conifer trees to the resident’s well-being and in the management of her health. The landlord was resolution focused as a senior leader visited the resident to apologise for its mistake. The landlord also said in line with its repair policy it would reinstate the boundary line to its correct position to prevent the mistake reoccurring. When the resident did not agree to its proposal, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree that within the lifetime of the resident’s tenancy it would not act to change the boundary line. However, once the tenancy ended, it would take steps to reinstate the boundary. These were reasonable steps to put things right.
  8. The resident told us that she had planted the conifer trees in the garden. This is disputed by the landlord who told us it was the owner of the trees on its land. The landlord’s tree policy says it is responsible for all trees situated on land it owns. Before planting a tree or hedges on its land, residents must request permission, and its environmental service will assess any request received. The resident has not provided evidence to show she was the owner of the trees felled by the landlord. If the resident has such evidence, she can provide this to the landlord who can assess whether it will assess her claim for the loss of her trees through its complaint procedure or whether this will be referred to its insurance team for a liability claim.
  9. We acknowledge that landlords must manage their resources carefully. The maturity of the conifer trees meant it was unlikely the landlord could have replaced the trees on a like for like basis. Trees of a similar age and height is likely to involve significant cost and other challenges to the landlord. The resident requested a significant amount of compensation for the loss of the trees that were felled and the impact she experienced. The landlord has apologised for the full impact of its error and subsequent actions. The landlord in its complaint review made a compensation award of £200 and offered to take steps to replant trees or install a replacement fence which was refused by the resident.
  10. Our Remedies Guidance says that payments between £100 to £600 are payable when a failing has adversely impacted a resident. While the landlord’s compensation award for its failings fall within this range even with its sincere apology it was not considered reasonable or proportionate. This is because the compensation award fell towards the lower end of the category and did not take into account the impact to the resident finding nesting boxes which led her to believe, the trees were felled without adequate checks being made. This caused additional distress to the resident. For this, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £300 recognising the vulnerabilities and impact to the resident.
  11. In summary, the landlord acknowledged its mistake in removing the trees in the resident’s garden. For this, it apologised and made a compensation award to the resident. However, the landlord failed in its complaint review to assess whether it had acted in line with its obligation to check for nesting birds before the conifer trees were removed. This caused significant distress to the resident. The landlord said it had learnt from the complaint and going forward in similar circumstances, it will visit before undertaking tree works where this involves work on a resident’s boundary. For the failings identified a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of trees from the resident’s garden.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination,  the landlord should
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident overall compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This includes the £200 compensation awarded in its complaints review.
    3. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £200 it has already offered to the resident during its complaint review, it can offset this amount from the £500 awarded above and pay the remaining balance to the resident.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the above timescales.