Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202113535)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113535

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 August 2022


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 response to the resident’s reports of ivy growing onto her property from a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In May 2021, the resident discussed a range of repair issues at her home with the landlord. During this discussion, she said that ivy had covered her property to an extent where she was unable to open her windows, and that she had had to pay for someone to remove the branches. On 29 June 2021, the resident reported that ivy growing into her garden from her neighbour’s property was still an issue and that the ivy was affecting her and her children’s health.
  3. On speaking with the landlord in July 2021 the resident reported that the ivy was growing through her fence. A formal complaint was raised and a stage one response issued on 19 July 2021. The landlord advised the resident that it appreciated the situation had been frustrating for her, but that it was her responsibility to ensure her garden was maintained to a satisfactory standard as part of her tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response and escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage two response on 13 September 2021. It reiterated its position that the maintenance of garden plants was the resident’s and neighbour’s responsibility. The landlord said that it would take action if the neighbour’s garden was overgrown to an extent that unreasonably impacted on the resident, but that an inspection it carried out showed that the ivy had been trimmed back to an acceptable degree. It said it appreciated that the resident had trimmed this, but advised that this demonstrated that the ivy was manageable.  It said it was unable to give advice regarding ivy allergies, but said that ivy, as is the case with other plants, can cause skin irritation and recommended that the resident used gloves when trimming it back. It confirmed that its complaints process had been completed and informed the resident how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident contacted this Service as she said that ivy from the neighbouring property had covered her property, and she did not believe that the landlord had acted appropriately by advising her that the maintenance of the ivy was her responsibility.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it does not consider “low-level neighbour disputes…as ASB”.
  2. The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that states tenants are responsible for keeping their gardens tidy, including keeping trees and shrubs neatly trimmed. This policy aligns with the standard tenancy agreement requirement that tenants are responsible for the maintenance of their own gardens. It was therefore reasonable, and in line with its policy, for the landlord to advise the resident of this in its complaint responses.
  3. The landlord would be expected to investigate complaints about the maintenance of neighbouring land that it, or its tenants, are responsible for. The landlord inspected the resident’s property as a whole in June 2021. Its officer followed up the inspection with a second visit in July. The inspection report from the first visit confirmed that ivy from the neighbouring property had grown through the fence and into the roof eaves. No recommendations were made at the time as it was noted that the ivy in the eves was dead so would not grow any further. The report also stated that the neighbouring property had ivy growing up its walls and into the roof which was also covering the windows. It noted that this would be fed back to the landlord to review.
  4. In response to queries from this Service about its inspections, the landlord provided information from the officer who conducted them. The officer confirmed that the ivy was growing from the neighbour’s garden, and that at the time he had considered it the “CLO responsibility to get the next door customer to cut it down.” In this context, CLO is understood to be the landlord’s customer liaison officers. The officer’s inspection report recommended that the landlord “review and act”, and the landlord’s final complaint response, which came after the officer’s inspections, confirmed that the landlord had reviewed the matter and that its final decision was for the matter to be resolved by the two tenants amongst themselves.
  5. The landlord explained in its final response that it did not consider the neighbour had failed to maintain their property by allowing ivy to grow onto their own house (which was part of the resident’s concern that the garden was not being maintained) as it considered it a matter of personal taste. It said that if the ivy is trimmed where needed, it was not something that should cause problems to the fabric of the building for example, blocking guttering. It advised the resident that she and her neighbour were expected to maintain the ivy and that its investigations had shown that this had been achieved at the time they were carried out. This was a reasonable response as the inspection report does not show that it was observed that the ivy caused any structural damage to the resident’s property at the time of her complaint.
  6. The resident explained in her complaint that she believed the overgrown ivy contravened the neighbour’s tenancy obligation to maintain their garden in an acceptable state. Any decision about whether a tenancy agreement is being breached is for the landlord to make at its own discretion based on the relevant circumstances. The landlord’s decision was based on the information provided following its inspections, and nothing in the evidence provided indicates it was an unreasonable one to make. It is important to appreciate that not every issue of dispute between two neighbours is one in which a landlord has an obligation to intervene. Only if a dispute was serious enough to be considered antisocial behaviour would a landlord usually be expected to take some form of action. In the circumstances of this particular complaint, the landlord’s decision not to take further action was in line with its policies, proportionate, and reasonable.
  7. In her complaint the resident pointed out that the landlord had previously agreed to cutting the ivy. The landlord acknowledged that at one point one of its officers had incorrectly said it would do so. It clarified in its final response that its staff member had mistakenly advised this, and apologised. This was a reasonable response, as the advice given by its staff member was contrary to the landlord’s policy. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its mistake in order to manage the resident’s expectations going forward. The landlord’s error would not commit it to a course of action which it was not originally obliged to take. Its acknowledgement of its mistake, explanation, and apology were reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.