Leeds City Council (202112399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112399

Leeds City Council

16 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ground maintenance concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant whose tenancy began on 11 November 2002. The landlord is a local authority and has described the property as a two-bedroom house.
3. The property is sited at the end of a terraced row of houses. It has a gable end wall where some shrubs are located on communal land and it has private gardens to the front and rear of the property. The resident has advised this Service that the rear garden leads to a car park.
4. The landlord has an alert on its system to show that the resident has communication needs and he advised it during the course of this complaint that he is disabled.
5. The landlord has a tenancy agreement booklet that shows that:
   1. the resident is responsible for keeping the garden in a ‘cultivated, neat, tidy’ condition, including keeping ‘shrubs and hedges’ trimmed and not ‘overgrowing or overhanging into neighbouring properties’
   2. it may clear a garden if it is not maintained and re-charge the costs to the resident if there is no good reason why the resident cannot do it
   3. the resident should not ‘threaten violence against, harass, verbally abuse or intimidate any Council employee or agent of the Council… in the locality of your property’.
6. The landlord’s website has a section on ‘communal area problems’ that confirms that it is responsible for maintenance of these areas, including shared gardens.
7. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure where it is required to respond within 15 working days at each stage. Its policy says that it can respond to the stage one complaint in writing or by telephone.

Summary of Events

8. The landlord’s internal emails show that it noted on 28 June 2021 that the resident had complained the previous week that it had not maintained the shrub bed adjacent to the gable wall of his property. It recorded that it had trimmed this back in the past to appease the resident but it would not meet his request to remove the shrub given the cost and that this would expose his wall to ball games. It added that it could not do anything beyond minor trimming back to ensure footpaths were accessible.
9. The landlord also noted that it had spoken to the resident on 28 June 2021 when he explained he was severely disabled and 75 years old so would not be able to maintain shrubs. He said he had suffered an injury the day before after catching his foot on a bush and that the parks team only cut these twice per year which was insufficient.
10. The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 2 July 2021 and that it had not upheld his complaint. It noted that it had agreed to trim back the shrub in question and had referred him to a ‘green guardians’ voluntary scheme for them to assist with his front and rear garden maintenance.
11. The landlord noted a complaint escalation request from the resident on 28 July 2021 on the grounds that he could not use his garden path due to overgrown bushes and weeds. He alleged that a member of staff had told him not to go out of his property and that nothing had been done since he reported the matter in June 2021.
12. The landlord’s telephone call records show that it spoke to the resident on 30 July 2021 and he said that he struggled to walk in his own garden due to weeds and bushes growing through a fence. It noted that the resident had asked for shrubs to be cut down and that it had asked him to clarify exactly where these were encroaching.
13. The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 3 August 2021 when he advised that operatives attended the day before to clear access but they had cut away his bushes and not fully cleared the area. It noted that it told the resident it would liaise with its cleaner neighbourhoods team.
14. The landlord noted it spoke to the resident on 4 August 2021 and told him that its cleaner neighbourhoods team had left the site because he had been verbally abusive and aggressive.
15. The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 6 August 2021. It noted that it told him its cleaner neighbourhoods team would not be re-attending but that he was on a waiting list for the ‘green guardians’ scheme referral with a likely timescale of 12 weeks. It added that the resident told it that he could not use the alternative entrance to the property because it was too far from the car park for him to walk and he did not want to ask his family for assistance because they work. It stated that the ‘green guardians’ team would help get the garden to a manageable condition but would not landscape it.
16. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2021. It did not uphold the complaint and concluded that:
    1. colleagues in its parks team had visited and decided that the shrub which the resident had raised concerns about was within his boundary
    2. it had made a referral to a ‘green guardians’ scheme for help with clearing the garden and timescales were discussed
    3. it also asked its cleaner neighbourhoods team to clear the path of weeds as a gesture of goodwill to ensure access was maintained
    4. it denied that its tenancy team leader had told him to stay indoors but that it instead had given him advice about avoiding the path where possible
    5. the cleaner neighbourhoods team attended on 2 August 2021 and commenced work in the wrong part of the garden which led to them leaving site after experiencing ‘abusive and aggressive language’ from the resident
    6. it said it would ask the ‘green guardians’ scheme to prioritise the referral (given the cleaner neighbourhoods team would not return to site) and signposted the resident to a local directory so he could look to find an appropriate tradesperson.
17. The landlord’s telephone log shows that it spoke to the resident on 13 August 2021 to confirm that the ‘green guardians’ would be in contact in due course and reiterate the tradespersons available through the directory it had signposted him to.
18. The resident approached this Service in late August 2021, explaining he was disabled and had suffered two falls due to the grounds nearby his property overlapping into his garden. He confirmed that he had sworn at operatives who had cleared the wrong part of his garden and said he could not afford to arrange a private tradesperson.
19. The landlord’s internal emails show that it noted on 7 September 2021 that it spoke to the resident that day and he told it that the ‘green guardians’ had recently attended to his garden albeit it was not as neat and tidy as he had hoped. It recorded that the resident said he was satisfied with the work but had been hoping for the garden to be landscaped so would liaise with private firms to get some flowers planted.
20. The landlord’s records show that its parks team considered the shrub issue (by the gable end wall) in October 2021, noting that it had been planted to assist in reducing disruption to the household caused by ball games against the property and that harsh pruning would likely cause this behaviour to re-commence.
21. The landlord’s internal records show that it visited the property in early November 2021 and found that shrubs were not overgrown but one branch was cut back so it did not overhang the resident’s fence. It noted that this was a separate issue to the shrubs within the resident’s garden for which the ‘green guardians’ referral had been made.
22. The resident advised this Service in June 2022 that he had paid private contractors to clear and tidy his rear garden but that there was again an issue with the front garden which meant that he was not receiving post; he confirmed that he could not manage the area himself due to his age and disability and reported that the communal shrubs were banging against his gable end wall.

Assessment and findings

23. The resident made an initial report about the landlord’s maintenance of a shrub bed adjacent to his property in late June 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that it considered the presence of the shrubbery and agreed to trim it away from any paths but rejected the option of removal given the possible anti-social behaviour that could be caused to the resident if it were not present. It was reasonable that the landlord considered the resident’s request and took into account the possible impact of the shrubs being removed.
24. The landlord reviewed its approach in October 2021 when it similarly determined that harsh pruning of the shrub would encourage anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless, it cut back a branch in November 2021 to ensure that the shrub was not overhanging the resident’s garden. It was reasonable for the landlord to give further consideration to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, visit the property and cut back the shrub to avoid it impacting the resident’s garden.
25. When the resident made his report about the communal shrub in late June-early July 2021, he also raised concerns about his ability to maintain his own gardens. Although the tenancy agreement shows that the resident is responsible for his own gardens, the landlord agreed to send operatives to assist and refer him to a scheme where volunteers could also help. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated that the landlord was willing to use its discretion to assist the resident despite it not being responsible for the maintenance of private gardens.
26. When the landlord’s operatives attended at the beginning of August 2021, they cut back plants in the front garden instead of the rear garden. There is no evidence to show that the resident had given specific information about what garden he wished to be dealt with albeit the landlord should have ensured its operatives took direction from him before commencing works. Its failure to do so meant that an error was made although it was reasonable that it assumed the resident was referring to use of his front garden path given he had reported problems in accessing his property.
27. Although the landlord’s attempt to assist the resident was therefore unsuccessful, it attempted to put this right by advising that it would ask the voluntary scheme referral to be prioritised. This led to the ‘green guardians’ attending during late August-early September 2021 (earlier than originally envisaged) and the resident confirmed he was satisfied with their work. This action was reasonable and again demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to find an alternative solution to the resident’s concerns.
28. The resident recently advised that the front garden has again become a problem for him and that the communal shrub is causing a further disturbance – recommendations are therefore made below in this regard.
29. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably between June-November 2021 in responding to the resident’s concerns about communal shrubs by visiting the site, rejecting the option of removal due to the likely impact this would have on the resident’s property and instead cutting back branches so they were not impacting the resident’s garden. Although it was not obliged to maintain the resident’s garden, it also sent operatives to cut back his plants to help him use a path. They addressed the incorrect garden but the landlord took appropriate steps to put this right by securing the attendance of volunteer gardeners.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ground maintenance concerns.

Reasons

31. The landlord responded reasonably to the concerns raised by the resident in June 2021 about communal shrubbery and maintenance of his gardens.

Recommendations

32. The landlord to assess whether any further cutting back of the communal shrubs is necessary and write to the resident to confirm the outcome.
33. The landlord to liaise with colleagues in its local authority social services department to establish whether there are any services that could be offered to the resident to assist with front garden maintenance and write to him to confirm the outcome.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.