The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Riverside Group Limited (202214546)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214546

The Riverside Group Limited

9 August 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 handling of the resident’s report of a nuisance caused by an overgrown tree.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord.
  1. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted listed building in a conservation area. There are strict planning rules to protect and preserve the site, including its trees, which are protected under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Written planning consent from the local authority is required before any work on trees can occur, including cutting down branches.
  2. On 9 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and complained that the overgrown branches of a tree reached her window, causing a nuisance due to noise and interrupted sleep. She said she was also unable to open the window as there was a risk that squirrels might enter the property.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and said it would respond by 16 July 2022. This service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s response; however, its operative attended the resident’s property on 25 July 2022 to assess the required work so it could submit the planning application to carry out work on the tree.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 August 2022, and the landlord responded with its final response letter on 7 September 2022. It apologised for the lack of communication with the resident. And it acknowledged that following the operative inspection of the tree on 25 July 2022, it should have ensured the timely submission of the planning application to carry out the work. It apologised and reiterated that it was committed to undertaking the work as soon as practicably possible once planning approval was granted, which it indicated should be in October 2022. The landlord closed the complaint.
  5. The resident chased up the matter with the landlord several more times, advising that the LA had no record of any application.
  6. The planning application was submitted in late November 2022 and acknowledged by the local authority on 25 November 2022. The acknowledgement letter stated that the landlord must wait six weeks before commencing the work. It could cut the tree from 6 January 2023 if no objections were received in the interim period. The tree was cut back on 23 January 2023.
  7. The resident contacted this service on 4 October 2022 and said her health was impacted due to loss of sleep, anxiety and depression caused by a tree branch knocking on the window throughout the day and night. She had to keep the window closed during the hot summer months to prevent squirrels from entering the property. To resolve the complaint, the resident seeks compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay and for her time and effort in pursuing the matter with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact of the tree on the resident’s health. This question may be better for the courts where the appropriate expertise can be drawn on. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she may want to seek legal advice.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The local authority enforces the tree preservation order (TPO). The information on its website says that a planning application is required before any work is carried out on protected trees, including cutting back and pruning.
  2. The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says it will maintain trees in communal areas if they require any attention because they present a health and safety risk and to keep them healthy.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy identifies various ways of putting things right, including an apology and a bouquet of flowers. It will award compensation where an actual financial loss has occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a nuisance caused by an overgrown tree  

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, and putting things right. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part has occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If the Ombudsman found that a failure adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put it right and learn from the outcome.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect that when a resident raises a service request, the landlord will address this within a reasonable time frame. The landlord would be expected to inform the resident of progress, explain the delay, and provide accurate timescales for completion.
  3. In this case, the landlord first needed to inspect the tree and then receive a quote from its contractor. If approved, it would then raise the job, and at that stage, the contractor would submit the planning application to the local contractor authority, which takes 6-8 weeks to approve before it could carry out any work.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord that the tree had caused a nuisance on 9 July 2022. The landlord sent its operative 10 working days later to inspect the property on 25 July 2022. This was an appropriate timeframe.
  5. Internal notes by the landlord’s staff from 25 July 2022 noted that the inspection was completed, and that the contractor would ‘deal with the TPO’. It noted that the resident knew the process took six to eight weeks and that she was “happy as long as communication continues”. The resident called for an update on 29 July 2022 and was told the quote from the contractor was expected on 1 August 2022, after which the landlord would raise the job.
  6. The resident called again for an update on 15 August 2022. As the landlord said it had no further updates, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two. This was three weeks after the operative inspected her property. In the Ombudsman’s view, three weeks was sufficient time for the landlord to approve the quote from its contractor and take the necessary steps to submit the planning application to the local authority, and proactively communicate the progress to the resident. From the evidence available to this service, it appears that the resident had escalated her complaint to get a confirmation that the landlord was committed to carrying out the work. This was not appropriate and a failure on the part of the landlord.
  7. On 31 August 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that “a request had gone into the council to prune a tree”. It then clarified on 7 September 2022 that the contractor had contacted the local authority and asked whether it could carry out the work without a full planning application, but the request was not approved.
  8. On 7 September 2022, the landlord wrote its final response letter and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged failing to monitor the contractor and ensure the timely submission of the planning application, which it implied it had now submitted. However, the evidence available shows that it was not submitted until late November 2022, causing a delay of approximately four months. This was not appropriate, and the landlord’s response was inaccurate and failed to identify the fact that no application had been made.
  9. The Ombudsman has considered the evidence and cannot see that a reasonable explanation was offered to the resident regarding the delay. It appears that the landlord could not get hold of its contractor from 29 July 2022 until 31 August 2022. On 31 August 2022, the contractor confirmed that “a request had gone into the council to prune tree”. On 7 September 2022, the landlord clarified that this was a request for whether it could carry out the work without a planning application which the local authority had rejected. There was a further breakdown in communication as the landlord could not get hold of its contractor again until 27 October 2022. It then found out on 28 October 2022 that the contractor did not accept further work from the landlord and that it did not submit the planning application.
  10. The landlord appointed a new contractor, and it submitted the planning application on 28 November 2022. The landlord received confirmation that the work could go ahead on 6 January 2023, and it completed the job two weeks after that, on 23 January 2023, which was within a reasonable time once it had the local authority’s consent.
  11. As set out above, there was a service failure by the delay in submitting the planning application to the local authority. The resident explained to this service that the noise at night had disrupted her sleep and caused distress and inconvenience. The resident also said she could not open her window due to the risk that squirrels might enter the property. And that she could not get fresh air in the hot summer months. An order of redress has been made below to put things right for the resident.
  12. The landlord should send a letter of apology to the resident, together with a compensation amount of £250, to redress the failures identified. This amount is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests a compensation of between £100 and £600 when the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge its failures and did not attempt to put things right for the resident.
  13. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a nuisance caused by an overgrown tree.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the delay in completing the job. It must also outline what it had learnt from the case and what action has been/will be taken to ensure delays such as these are minimised as much as realistically possible. A copy of its letter must be sent to this service.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of a nuisance caused by an overgrown tree.