One Vision Housing Limited (202213153)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213153

One Vision Housing Limited

11 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 response to:
    1. Reports of overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden.
    2. Request to repair damage to the resident’s shed and decking.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow with a private back garden. The resident’s back garden adjoins a neighbour’s garden at the rear which is separated by a boundary fence.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, it attended the resident’s property in January 2020 to inspect overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden. A further inspection was completed in September 2020, and the overgrown trees were felled from the neighbour’s garden in October 2020. Following an inspection of the resident’s fence in July 2021, it reported that his entire boundary fence at the rear of the garden was damaged and required replacing. It raised works to replace this fence in July 2021, but noted that the resident had refused these works. There was no evidence of correspondence or further actions taken until May 2022.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint in early May 2022. He stated that he had raised concerns about the overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden since July 2017, but no action was taken until October 2020 when the trees were felled. He stated that although the trees were cut down, some evergreen (ivy) in the neighbour’s garden still encroached into his boundary. The resident explained that when the trees were felled it had caused a six-foot hole in his fence. The resident believed that due to its lack of action over the years, the trees had caused structural damage to the garden fence, shed and decking and noted the landlord had agreed to replace the boundary fence due to the damage caused by the trees. However, he was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication around the replacement of the fence. He was also dissatisfied it had not offered to repair his garden shed and decking or compensate him for that damage.
  4. The landlord’s records showed it had arranged works to replace the boundary fence in February 2022 and had inspected the resident’s garden in mid-July 2022. It took pictures of the reported damage to his shed and decking to review with its property surveyor. It determined that the shed and decking were in poor condition (rotted) but that it was not caused by the contractor’s removal of the trees.
  5. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time from his initial report to the time taken to remove the tree in October 2020; however, it did not give a date for when the reports were first made. It explained that part of the delay was due to the pandemic. The landlord apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused. It advised that it would ensure that reports of overgrown trees were inspected and monitored promptly to avoid repeat incidents. The landlord also confirmed it would replace the entire boundary fence including the side gate. It advised that it would contact him to arrange the commencement of fence works at a suitable time. The landlord stated that the resident’s shed and decking were covered in ivy and had rotted. It said that the resident would have been able to remove any overgrown trees or ivy within his own garden and that it considered that failing to do so had caused the damage to his shed and decking. The landlord noted that, despite its delay in felling the overgrown trees, there was no evidence that the poor condition of the shed or decking was its responsibility.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service, as he was dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to act on his reports made since 2017 about the overgrown trees.  He was also unhappy that the landlord had refused to take responsibility for the damage to his shed and decking. As a resolution he asked for remedial works to his shed and decking or compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, he has referred to historical issues of overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden since 2017, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until May 2022. This Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still “live”, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to whether or not the landlord acted fairly in response to the resident’s statements that he had raised the issues since 2017.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s grounds maintenance policy states that the landlord will comply with all legislation, best practice and health and safety guidance in relation to the management and checking of all trees that are its responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s grounds maintenance policy states that it will consider carrying out tree maintenance works, where its contractor confirms that the tree is: touching an adjacent structure, affecting stability or structure, or had outgrown the space allocated. The policy further states that based on the findings of the inspection it would carry out maintenance work on the trees/ shrubs or remove the tree(s) or shrubs altogether.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of their garden, including keeping trees and shrubs neat and tidy.
  4. The landlord’s fencing policy states that fence replacements would fall under its planned improvements. It states that in developing a fencing programme, it will first survey the areas and decide to replace the fencing if the original fence is no longer in place or is in such a condition that it requires replacement.

Reports of overgrown trees in the neighbour’s back garden

  1. As per the grounds maintenance policy, when reports are raised regarding overgrown trees, the landlord would be obligated to inspect and consider removal or tree maintenance works where trees are touching an adjacent structure or affecting stability or structure. This is because overgrown trees can sometimes impact on the enjoyment of properties or pose a risk to a property or fence condition.
  2. The landlord sought to put matters right by felling the overgrown trees within the neighbour’s garden in October 2020. The resident described the trees as significantly overgrown, encroaching into his boundary and causing damage to his garden fence. Therefore, felling the trees was an appropriate action taken in the circumstances, which ultimately resolved the substantive issue by putting the resident back in the position he was in before the issues regarding the overgrown trees began.
  3. However, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in felling the neighbour’s overgrown trees; it did not dispute the resident’s claim that he had first reported this matter in 2017, as he claimed. This suggests that there was a significant delay even taking account of delays caused by the pandemic lockdown. While the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to retain records dating back to 2017, it would have been reasonable to have included in its response when it first became aware of his reports of the overgrown trees.
  4. In this case the landlord acknowledged that there were failures, particularly with delays in resolving the issue of overgrown trees. While it apologised, it failed to fully consider the impact of this on him. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge where it fell short of its expectations; however, an apology alone was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  5. In making this decision, this Service has considered whether the landlord’s apology alone was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is evident that the landlord’s delay in removing the overgrown tress caused the resident frustration, inconvenience, and distress. Financial compensation of £225 is appropriate for that impact. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been delays in taking action.
  6. Additionally, the resident stated that his boundary fence had been damaged by the overgrown trees and left a hole in the fence during the removal of the trees. The landlord’s fencing policy states it will first survey the areas and decide to replace fencing if the original fence is no longer in place or is in such a condition that it requires replacement. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its fencing policy by surveying the resident’s garden in July 2021. Given its findings that the entire boundary fence was damaged, it was reasonable to arrange a replacement boundary fence in July 2021. This work did not go ahead as the resident refused these works. As the fence remained damaged, it was appropriate for the landlord to re-raise the replacement of the resident’s fence in February 2022. The evidence suggests that this work is still incomplete, and an order has been made for the landlord to take re-instigate this work.

Request to repair damage to the resident’s shed and decking

  1. The resident believes the landlord should be held responsible for the damage to his garden shed and decking. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s garden on 25 July 2022 to determine the cause of the damage and whether or not it was responsible. From its inspection in July 2022, the landlord found that the resident’s shed and decking were covered in ivy and had rotted. It is unclear whether or not the ivy emanated from the neighbour’s garden. Nonetheless, in line with the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for the maintenance of his own garden including keeping trees, shrubs and hedges neat and tidy.
  2. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take pictures of the shed and decking to review and gain a second opinion from its property surveyor. This was a reasonable position to take and in this case the landlord has relied on the opinions of its appropriately qualified property surveyor, who concluded that the shed and decking was in poor condition but that the damage was not caused by the contractor’s removal of trees in October 2021. Therefore, the landlord’s decision that it had no liability to repair or compensate for the damage to the resident’s shed or decking was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to repair the damage to his shed and decking.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £225 in compensation for the impact of the delay in felling trees from the neighbour’s garden.
    2. Provide the resident with an update on the fence replacement works. If any remedial works are required, the landlord should ensure these are carried out within the timescales set out in the landlord’s fencing policy.