Lambeth Council (202116411)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116411

Lambeth Council

24 October 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the reduction of the height of the property’s hedge.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a ground floor flat.
  2. On 29 May 2020 the landlord wrote a letter to all residents on the estate advising that, due to a high volume of Anti Social Behaviour, it had been decided to reduce all hedges on the estate by 50%.
  3. The resident rang the landlord on 1 June 2020 to say that he was not happy about the hedges being cut. He was concerned it would increase the chances of his flat being broken into. The landlord states that it told the resident that day that, as a compromise, for that year only it would only cut the hedges to chest height, however they would be reduced lower each year.
  4. On 3 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that his behaviour to another resident of the estate regarding the decision to cut the hedges on the estate was not acceptable. The landlord also stated that it had been agreed to reduce the hedge heights due to anti social behaviour on the estate. It stated that as a compromise it was prepared to allow the hedges at the resident’s property to be reduced to chest height only, which would give the resident a degree of privacy. However, the rest of the hedges on the estate would be reduced by 50%. The landlord now acknowledges that it did not state in this letter that the hedge would be cut further the next year.
  5. On 22 July 2020 the MPS Crime Prevention unit issued an Environmental Visual Audit for the estate which had been commission by the landlord. This included as one of its top three recommendations the reduction of the height of the hedges.
  6. On 19 August 2021 the landlord cut the resident’s hedge down by 50%. On 21 August 2021 the resident wrote to a councillor complaining about this. He said that it had been agreed in writing that it would be chest height.
  7. On 24 August 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. It stated that about a year ago a recommendation from the police had been to reduce the height of the hedges. It stated that most residents had welcomed this. The hedges had grown back and needed to be maintained.
  8. On 21 September 2021 the resident submitted a further complaint with the landlord. The resident complained that he was only given ten days notice that the hedge height would be reduced by 50%. He stated that it had been agreed that his hedge would stay at chest height, however it was then cut by 50%. The resident’s concern was that a lower hedge will increase crime and he would no longer be able to sit outside due to reduced privacy. This was followed up by another complaint by the resident submitted to the landlord on 29 November 2021.
  9. On 21 September 2021 in an internal email, the landlord stated that the hedge reduction was to reduce crime. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord had agreed that it would only cut the resident’s hedges to chest height on the first occasion, however the hedges would then be reduced further and eventually would be the same height as the rest of the estate. The landlord stated that at no time had it been agreed that the hedges would remain at chest height forever.
  10. The landlord sent the resident its second stage complaint response on 4 October 2021. It confirmed that, after several issues of Anti Social Behaviour on the estate, it was agreed with the police that reducing the hedge height on the estate by 50% would help with this as high hedges increase the risk of crime. The landlord noted that the resident had submitted an objection. It was agreed that on the first occasion the hedges at his property would only be cut to chest height, but then would then be reduced to 50%. The landlord observed that since reducing hedge height, there had been fewer reports of ASB and the majority of residents were pleased with the lower hedges and feel safer. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not happy but stated that it hoped that he accepted the landlord’s reasons.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s complaint raises two key issues. Firstly, was the landlord reasonable to decrease the hedge height. Secondly, whether the landlord communicated with the resident in a reasonable manner.

Hedge Height

  1. The agreement between the parties states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the outside of the property. The Ombudsman therefore starts from the position that the landlord is entitled to determine how to best maintain the hedge at the front of the property, including the height. In doing so, the landlord should have reasonable regard to the resident’s submissions on the maintenance of the hedge. In considering what is reasonable, the landlord should also have regard to the wider needs of the estate and other residents.
  2. In this case, the evidence clearly indicates that the landlord’s decision to reduce the height of the hedge was to assist in crime reduction. This decision was made taking into account recommendations from the police.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the resident disagrees with this position – and in fact feels that the reduction of the hedge height in fact increases the likelihood of crime. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the hedge height reduction is, in fact, likely to reduce crime. Rather, the question for the Ombudsman is whether it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that it might, based on the information and advice available to it.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make. The reduction of hedge height was one of the top three recommendations identified by the police, and it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice it received from the police. The Ombudsman therefore finds that it was not a failing by the landlord in its decision to reduce the height of the hedge at the resident’s property.

Communication

  1. Whilst the Ombudsman is satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to reduce the height of the hedges, the landlord should also have communicated about this in a reasonable manner.
  2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the letter that the landlord sent to all the residents on 29 May 2020 explained the reasons for the decision and what would happen. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that when the resident complained, the landlord took reasonable steps to explain again why it had made the decision.
  3. However, there was a service failing in its letter of 3 June 2020. The landlord acknowledges that it did not state in this letter that, while the resident’s hedge would not be significantly reduced at that time, the hedge would be cut further the next year. The resident therefore reasonably expected that the landlord would not reduce his hedge to 50% going forward and was understandably surprised when on 19 August 2021 his hedge was further reduced.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that this caused the resident distress. Despite the poor communication, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it remains reasonable for the landlord to reduce the height of the hedge. However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the failing in its communication with the resident about this matter.
  5. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  6. In this case, the compensation is for the resident’s distress at seeing the hedge further reduced a year after the letter of June 2020. The compensation is not for the reduction in the height of the hedge itself.
  7. The resident’s distress was compounded by the landlord’s failure to initially acknowledge that it had failed to clearly communicate with the resident that the hedge would be further reduced in the future. The landlord did not acknowledge the failing to the resident in its second complaint response and does not appear to have acknowledge this until the matter was progressed with this Service. Taking these factors into account, the Ombudsman considers £150.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation. The Ombudsman requires the landlord to pay this amount to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s decision to reduce the height of the hedge was reasonable. However the landlord did not tell the resident that, while the resident’s hedge would not be substantially reduced at first, it would be the next year. There were therefore failings in its communications around this matter, which its own consideration of the complaint did not identify.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £150.00 compensation within four weeks of the date of this decision.