Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202007488)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007488

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

27 January 2021

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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of it removing vegetation from the garden of the resident’s property without her permission.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
On 29 May 2020 the resident called the police after reported sightings of her abusive ex-partner by other residents. The police advised the resident that as the resident herself had not seen her ex-partner, there was nothing they could do to help her.
On 10 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that she had been informed by other residents that her abusive ex-partner had been spying on her through her garden fence.
On 16 July 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to her landlord because the roses and brambles in her garden had been “hacked away” without her permission or awareness. The stage one complaint is summarised below:
1. The resident accepted that both creepers were overgrown but assured the landlord that she was intending to get them tended to by professional gardeners at the end of the fruiting season.
2. The resident stated that her neighbour was happy with the fence being overgrown and that nobody else had informed her that it was an issue.
3. The resident stated that the thorny creepers were added in by her for safety and privacy purposes.
4. The resident stated that she now felt unsafe in her home as it would be easier for her abusive ex-partner to spy on her. The resident said that the landlord was aware of the situation she was facing with her ex-partner.
5. The resident explained how, as a result of the “hacking job done”, she would get much less fruit and have to watch the vegetation die over the summer.
The resident finalised her stage one complaint by expressing her annoyance with not having been contacted prior to work being carried out on the vegetation. The resident also asked for an apology and compensation for the damage and distress caused following this situation.
On 5 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. This response is summarised below:
1. The landlord confirmed that the relevant contractor who managed grounds maintenance found “a substantial amount of overgrown vegetation which hung over the fence and into the public space”.
2. The landlord stated that the work carried out by contractor was spontaneous as a result of an inspection and the work was actioned to ensure that the bushes were cut back to the boundary of the fence.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns with her abusive ex-partner being able to spy on her and apologised for what had happened.
4. The landlord assured the resident that it had contacted the contractor to inform them that in the future the resident wished to be contacted prior to any work being carried out. Alternatively, the landlord suggested that the resident herself pruned the bushes and maintained any overgrowth into public areas.
5. In terms of redress, the landlord expressed apologies from the contractor and their wish to work alongside the resident in the future.
6. Also, it reassured the resident that it had learnt from this situation and intended to use this particular case to aid the improvement of its services.
The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint if she was not satisfied with the outcome.
On 6 August 2020 the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process as she remained dissatisfied.
In this response the resident acknowledged the apology given but reiterated her disbelief at the situation. According to the resident, the reason for the overgrown vegetation was to protect herself from her abusive ex-partner and because of her anti-social neighbour upstairs. The resident finished her escalation request by stating that she wanted to be compensated for the distress, impact on her safety, and for the time she had put into pursuing this issue.
The resident also asked the landlord to provide her with the contractor’s reports from the day and any relevant photographs. The resident stated that the landlord may be in breach of the tenancy agreement as it does not say that work like this could be carried out without consulting her first.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. In this response the landlord stated that the contractors had a responsibility to ensure that the overgrown vegetation was cut back to the fence boundaries. The landlord advised the resident that in the future, if the contractor notes overgrown vegetation in the resident’s garden, they will:
1. take a photograph
2. forward this photograph to the landlord
3. give the resident a week’s notice to remove the vegetation
4. If the resident fails to remove the overgrown vegetation herself, the work will be carried out by the contractor.
The landlord summarised its stage two complaint response by stating that, according to the tenancy agreement, it was up to the tenants to manage their gardens. However, if their garden encroaches on public space, the contractor has the right to cut this back without consultation.
The landlord addressed the resident’s request for compensation and stated that, in this circumstance, given that there has been no evidence of service failure, the resident was not to be awarded compensation.
On 24 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that even though her fence was “undeniably overgrown it posed no danger to structure, people or vehicles, and has not been inconveniencing anyone”. She also commented on how her ex-partner had been seen spying on her and that the garden had made her feel safe. According to the resident, the garden had been in its overgrown state for several years.
On the 24 August 2020, the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed that the contractor is to cut any overgrowing vegetation back to the boundaries of the fence which can be done without consulting the respective residents. It advised that in the future it will be in direct contact with the resident to ask her first to address any overgrown vegetation. According to the landlord, this procedure is not the usual process it followed, but it had been agreed by itself and the contractor for the benefit of the resident.

Assessment and findings

According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is to “maintain the structure and outside of the property” which includes “boundary walls and fences”. Therefore, in this circumstance it was appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to carry out work on the overgrown vegetation as it was in line with its obligation to maintain the boundary walls and fences. Making the resident aware that work was going to take place would have prevented any avoidable distress or inconvenience for her. However, the landlord did not breach its tenancy agreement by not consulting her as the overgrowth fell within its obligations for maintaining the boundary.
The tenancy agreement states that a resident “must not improve, change or add to the property unless we have agreed in writing and you have any other necessary permission”. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the resident requested permission to have overgrown vegetation in her garden as a safety precaution. It is not disputed that the resident verbally made the landlord aware of her safety concerns following reports that her ex-partner had been seen spying on her in a telephone conversation on 10 June 2020. Nonetheless, the lack of written permission for overgrown vegetation as a result of her safety concerns meant that the landlord was unable to consider the resident’s request formally nor act upon it accordingly.
From having been made aware of the resident’s safety concerns, the landlord went above its obligations by arranging a new agreement with the her regarding future instances of overgrown vegetation in her garden. It implemented a new arrangement with the intention of preventing the resident from undergoing any further distress which could be reasonably avoided. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it took the resident’s concerns into consideration and sought a fair compromise.
Overall, the landlord took appropriate action once it was made aware of the resident’s safety concerns. As the landlord was not informed beforehand that the resident had overgrown her vegetation in order to make herself feel safer, it was under no obligation to seek her consent prior to having the vegetation trimmed. Although it would have been helpful to have consulted her first and the landlord has confirmed it will do so in future, which is reasonable.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take the resident’s safety concerns into consideration, it would not be obliged to agree to let her keep the overgrown vegetation on this basis as it may be more appropriate to consider other methods of maintaining her safety and privacy for example by making adaptations to the fencing rather than allowing vegetation to become overgrown. If the resident has ongoing safety concerns, she may wish to discuss this with the landlord and explore alternative options for improving her safety. Overgrown vegetation might cause damage to the fencing over time and may make the area look untidy as well as causing access problems if it was encroaching onto public land. The evidence provided for this investigation demonstrates that the vegetation was undisputedly encroaching on public space. The landlord was therefore within its rights to tend to the overgrowth on boundary walls and fences and was not obligated to consult the resident as the overgrowth was not contained within the perimeters of the resident’s property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of it removing vegetation from the garden of the resident’s property without her permission.

Reasons

According to the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for the upkeep of her garden. However, in this circumstance the landlord was obliged to trim back the overgrown vegetation which had gone beyond the resident’s garden to the boundary of the fence as stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord then responded to the complaint satisfactorily by introducing a new policy after considering the resident’s safety concerns regarding her ex-partner in an effort to put things right.