Torus62 Limited (202003450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003450

Torus62 Limited

27 August 2024

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 reports of garden overgrowth from a rear adjoining property.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom end-of-terrace bungalow. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 4 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a complaint. He said he had been contacting the landlord since 2014 to complain about the overgrowth in his back garden of brambles, nettles, and shrubs from a privately owned property to the rear of his. He said he had been regularly clearing his garden, but the ‘infestation’ was starting to affect his health. He asked to be provided with the rear property’s landowner’s contact details.
4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 May 2022. It said it had tried to contact the landowner in June 2021, as well as the council and environmental health agency (EHA). It said it had written again to the landowner, the council, and the EHA in May 2022 and asked them to attend to the overgrown brambles as a matter of urgency.
5. In response, the landowner contacted the landlord and said they were happy to rectify the situation, but it could only be done after the nesting season was over. The private landowner said they did not wish to share their contact details but would liaise with the landlord. The council said their planning enforcement and pollution teams had advised there was nothing to act upon and the EHA also said the situation did not qualify for action. They said that, while there was overgrowth, it did not make the land untidy. They said that the resident should continue to clear his garden of any overhanging vegetation.
6. The landlord said it had arranged to clear the resident’s garden as a one-off gesture. It reminded the resident that, under the tenancy agreement, garden maintenance was his responsibility so it would not undertake any further garden maintenance work.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to stage 2. He asked why the landlord would not erect a fence and why it refused to provide him with the landowner’s contact details.
8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 July 2022, it said that it had contacted its neighbourhood and assets teams to consider whether there was an option to erect the fence the resident was requesting, and it would update him once a response was received.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman in July 2022, when he advised that he sought for the landlord to erect a fence and provide the landowner’s contact details.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
11. The resident has also logged other complaints with the landlord about ongoing issues with noise from a neighbouring property and antisocial behaviour. While the landlord incorrectly addressed some of this in its stage 2 response of July 2022, it has since issued separate stage 1 and 2 responses to these matters. The resident has referred this complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration, and it is being dealt with under a separate case reference number. It is not, therefore, considered further in this assessment.

The landlord’s handling of garden overgrowth

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that he is responsible for repairing and maintaining the garden including trees, hedges, and paths apart from any essential means of access to the premises which are an integral part of the dwelling. It further says that the resident is responsible for keeping any garden let with the premises in a neat and tidy condition by cutting grass, keeping weeds under control, and trimming hedges, trees and bushes.
13. It is clear from these provisions that maintaining a tidy garden is the responsibility of the resident; the landlord is not expected to deal with garden maintenance. However, in handling reports of infestation or dangerous overgrowth, it is this Service’s expectation that the landlord would make suitable inspections and enquiries to establish if the matter being complained of posed a risk, and if so, whether it met the threshold where it was required to take action to rectify.
14. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s contact with the council and the EHA. Both concluded that the overgrowth was at a level that could be managed by the resident himself and did not warrant involvement by either of them, or the landlord. As such, the landlord was not required to take any further action to address the issue.
15. However, the landlord did take steps to help the resident, despite not being required to do so, by arranging a garden clean up. It contacted the landowner and arranged with them to also take care of the overgrowth on their side of the fence and get an agreement to maintain the land moving forward. This was as much as it could do as the landlord had no control over the private landowner’s actions and no legal recourse to force them to comply since the growth did not meet the criteria for such action.
16. Following the initial complaint, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about the installation of a fence to the rear of his property in May 2023. In reply to that complaint, the landlord said that an enquiry had been made with the assets team for a new fence. However, the outcome of the enquiry remained that the landlord was not required to install a rear fence if an existing suitable boundary was already in place. It said the resident could apply for permission if he wanted to install his own fencing on the boundary line at his own expense.
17. The landlord considered the resident’s request for the installation of a solid fence but ultimately decided it would not install this as the existing boundary was sufficient. This is something it was entitled to do. The landlord took reasonable steps in trying to find a solution for the resident and considered options it might be able to pursue; that is all it was required to do.
18. The resident is unhappy that the landlord would not share the landowner’s contact details with him. However, this was not something the landlord could do without permission since those details are personal data which cannot be shared with third parties without consent. The landowner did not provide consent and so the landlord acted correctly in its compliance with the landowner’s wishes. It further informed the resident that he would be able to obtain this information by making enquiries himself; again, this is all it could do.
19. The landlord does not have an obligation to clear the resident’s garden; this is his responsibility under the terms of his tenancy. The steps the landlord took to resolve the complaint for the resident were proportionate and reasonable, and no further action is required by the landlord in that regard.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden overgrowth.