Newham Council (202119473)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119473

Newham Council

13 February 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

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:
    1. The pruning works to trees near the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord operates a three-year pruning cycle, in which required maintenance is completed to several trees surrounding the resident’s property. The resident raised a previous complaint to this Service in May 2019 regarding concerns about a dangerous tree, which the landlord had not pruned as it was unable to gain access to the car park to complete the works. Following investigation, in July 2020 this Service ordered the landlord to review how it would gain access to the car park and to advise the resident of the timeframe in which it would complete the works. 
  3. The resident raised a further complaint as he was dissatisfied with the standard of tree pruning. He said there was excessive leaf fall onto his balcony and the leaves blocked the drainage pipes. He also noted the tree overhung the main entrance path, so the path was covered in bird droppings. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he asked why the landlord could not prune the overhanging branches away from his flat. He also asked the landlord to confirm its policies related to tree pruning, that it referred to in its stage one response.
  4. In the landlord’s final response on 13 July 2022, it confirmed that it had carried out the correct actions, in line with its policies. It stated that an inspection of the trees had been completed on 8 July 2022 and it confirmed the trees had been pruned in July and August 2021, but had since undergone seasonal growth. It stated the contractor had confirmed that further pruning would not resolve the issue of leaves falling, but leaf guards may be a practical solution to prevent leaves blocking the downpipes. It also stated that its contractors cleaned drains and gullies when they visited, but it advised the resident to report any urgent issues. It noted that further pruning the trees would not necessarily stop bird droppings, but it would arrange a deep clean of the area. It stated the trees were on a two-year inspection cycle and would be next inspected in 2023.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as the tree branches still hung over his flat, which caused issues with the drainpipes being blocked and with bird droppings. He wanted the landlord to maintain the trees to resolve the issues he had reported.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain the structure of the property, including drains, gutters and outside pipes.
  2. The landlord’s tree policy states:
    1. It “will not prune or fell a tree on Council land to remove or reduce bird droppings. Disturbing nesting birds is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981, this is a natural occurrence and can usually be addressed with soap and water.”
    2. It “will not remove trees without good reason”.
    3. It “will not carry out work to address over hang”.

Scope of investigation

  1. The previous complaint that has already been assessed by the Housing Ombudsman has been included for contextual background to the current complaint. This report will only assess issues that have not already been determined on by this Service, so will focus on the standard of the pruning works to the trees, and how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of the works.

The pruning works to trees near the resident’s property.

  1. As ordered by this Service following the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord was obliged to arrange access to the car park to complete pruning works to the trees. The landlord should also ensure that it addresses any additional concerns raised by the resident and that it acts in line with its tree policy.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that works were carried out on 16 July 2021, 8 August 2021 and 2 September 2021 to complete pruning works to the trees close to the resident’s property. The contractor’s report noted that no further works were recommended. Given the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of the work completed, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged a post-inspection on 8 July 2022, in which the contractor confirmed that the required work had been completed, although there had since been seasonal growth. The landlord acted appropriately as it provided the resident with a detailed account of the works that had been completed. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors, who determined that the work was completed to an acceptable standard. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that no further tree pruning works were required.
  3. As the resident had raised additional concerns regarding excessive leaf fall blocking the drainpipes and bird droppings on the pavement due to birds using the tree to perch on, the landlord would be expected to assess whether additional works to prune the trees were required to resolve the issues. If the landlord deemed further works were not necessary, it would be expected to provide a clear explanation of the relevant reasons for its decision to the resident.
  4. In response to the resident’s concerns of excessive leaf fall from the tree, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a contractor to assess whether works could be carried out to resolve the issue. The contractor had determined that additional pruning would not resolve the issues of leaves falling and the landlord also advised the resident that leaf fall was a natural occurrence. As pruning the tree would not reduce the occurrence of leaves falling and removing the tree (which would resolve the issue in full) was not an action the landlord would take in line with its tree maintenance policy, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take.
  5. However, as the resident reported repair issues caused by the leaf fall, including blocked drainage pipes, the landlord should take steps to resolve the issues. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and advised that its contractors routinely cleaned the drains and gullies when they visited the property and if there were any urgent issues in the interim the resident could report it to the landlord as a repair. It is noted that the landlord referenced installing a leaf guard was a potential solution to prevent the leaves blocking the drainage pipes. It was unclear from the landlord’s response whether it intended to proceed with the action. In order to manage the resident’s expectations, it is recommended that the landlord confirms its position regarding the leaf guard installation.
  6. The resident also raised concerns that the tree overhung the main entrance path, which birds used to perch on so the path was covered in bird droppings. The landlord’s tree policy states that it will not prune a tree to reduce bird droppings, so it would not be obliged to fulfil the resident’s request. As a result, the landlord’s decision to not complete additional pruning works to prevent bird droppings was reasonable as it was in line with its policy. The landlord also advised the resident that the contractor had stated additional pruning works would not necessarily stop bird droppings. Despite this, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to resolve the resident’s concerns as it advised in its stage one response it would complete a deep clean of the affected area.
  7. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord advised the resident of the relevant tree policy that it seemingly based its decision not to complete additional pruning works on. This was despite the fact that the resident requested in his complaint escalation to be provided with the relevant policies that the landlord had referenced in its stage one response. As a result, there was a missed opportunity to more clearly manage the resident’s expectations. However, ultimately, as the landlord had confirmed that it would not complete any additional pruning works, providing further information confirming the policies would not have impacted the complaint outcome.
  8. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s reports appropriately as it completed the required works and a post-inspection to confirm the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord’s decision to not complete additional pruning works in light of the resident’s concerns regarding bird droppings and excessive leaf fall was reasonable as it was in line with its tree policy and its contractor’s opinions. It was also appropriate that the landlord assessed alternative methods to resolve the issues. For completeness, it is recommended that the landlord confirms its position regarding installing leaf guards and provides the resident with its tree policies.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 15 working days. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2022 and stated he was dissatisfied with the standard of tree pruning following this Service’s previous recommendations. He requested a final response letter, so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns in line with its complaints policy.
  2. It is noted that the landlord may have needed to seek clarification regarding whether the additional concerns raised by the resident would fall under its complaints policy, as orders made by this Service are generally handled by compliance checks rather than forming a separate complaint. This may have led to the landlord exceeding its response timeframe, however, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident reasonably updated. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until 23 February 2022 and it did not seek assistance from this Service until 3 March 2022.
  3. This Service clarified the reasons for the resident’s complaint with the landlord on 8 March 2022 and stated the resident should be able to raise a further complaint with the landlord regarding the standard of tree pruning, as the issue was not covered in the original complaint referred to this Service. This Service then advised the landlord on 31 March 2022 to issue a complaint response to the resident by 19 April 2022. However, there is no evidence to suggest there was any correspondence between the resident and the landlord during this period. The landlord subsequently sent a stage one acknowledgement on 8 April 2022 and issued its stage one response on 17 May 2022. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had proactively attempted to resolve the complaint, leading to additional time and effort for the resident in pursuing the complaint with this Service. Furthermore, as well as the delay in raising a complaint, the landlord also exceeded its response timeframe once the complaint had been acknowledged.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 May 2022 and the landlord responded on 13 July 2022, which again exceeded its complaint response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay at stage two, but it took no further steps to demonstrate redress.
  5. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint, and provide clear reasons for its decisions. In this case, the resident asked the landlord to confirm its policies regarding tree pruning, as it had referenced them in its stage one response. The landlord did not provide the requested information within its stage two response, so it failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding its responsibilities. The landlord is therefore ordered to address the resident’s queries and provide the requested policy.
  6. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempted to put things right. In this case, the landlord failed to raise a complaint within a reasonable timeframe, respond in line with its response timeframes or address the complaint in full. This has led to additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint and further inconvenience as his concerns were outstanding for a prolonged period of time. As a result, the landlord should award the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the impact its failings 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 the pruning works to trees near the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of its complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with the relevant tree policies.
  3. The above actions should be completed within 4 weeks and confirmation of compliance provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether it intends to install leaf guards.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, to ensure it promptly recognises when a complaint needs to be raised.