North Northamptonshire Council (202201798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201798

North Northamptonshire Council

8 March 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 response to the resident’s request for it to remove a tree in her front garden.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a sheltered scheme bungalow. The landlord is a local authority.
4. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021, and complained that the large tree in her front garden was “inundated” with pigeons, that left droppings over her path and railings. She said that pigeon droppings were a danger to human health, and was concerned about the impact this would have on her and her husband’s medical conditions. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to remove the tree.
5. The landlord operates a two stage complaint process aiming to respond to stage one within 20 working days and stage two within a further 20 working days from escalation.
6. In its stage two response in September 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it could not cut down a healthy tree because she considered the pigeons to be causing a nuisance to her. It said that it had delivered correspondence to all the surrounding properties requesting that nobody fed the pigeons. It said that it had not considered moving the resident at that time, as evidence had not been provided to show that the pigeon droppings were having a detrimental impact on her health.
7. In November 2021, the resident raised a number of further concerns, regarding the condition and health of the tree. She said she been made aware of these issues by workmen who removed a tree in the park opposite her home, whom she had asked assess the tree in her garden. As a result, she believed that the condition of the tree was such, that it posed a physical danger to people and property, and asked the landlord to consider this.
8. The landlord’s arborist assessed the tree in January 2022, in light of the resident’s specific concerns, and the landlord sent the resident a copy of its findings. The arborist did not report any safety issues with the tree nor made any recommendations for the tree removed. It said that the tree “had been assessed as low risk and in a low risk area.” The arborist explained that whilst it believed the tree contractors who had previously spoken with the resident were trying to be helpful, it had no knowledge of, and expressed doubts about, their technical qualifications, and considered that the information they relayed to the resident was “largely irrelevant or incorrect”.
9. Due to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction regarding its decision to not remove the tree, the landlord sent her a further and final stage two response on 1 March 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said that this fell below its usual standards, and that it was working to improve this going forward. It referred the resident to its previous responses in light of concerns it said it had already addressed. It acknowledged that the resident wished to discuss the situation in person, and that she wished to hire her own tree expert to assess the tree, but it advised her that these actions were unlikely to have any bearing on its decision, due to the tree having been assessed as healthy by the its arborist. It apologised that the resident felt that it had shown no understanding in regards to her health, but said it did not feel that that was the case. It confirmed that its complaints process had been completed and included details by which the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall response. She believed that whilst the tree remained, it attracted pigeons which posed a risk to her and husband’s health.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s request to remove a tree in her front garden

11. The resident’s complaint primarily concerned her request for the landlord to remove the tree, as she believed that this was “the one and only appropriate action” to resolve the pigeon issue. In its initial response to the resident’s request, the landlord appropriately explained to her that the pigeons appeared to be the cause of the concerns the she was raising, rather than the tree itself. The landlord said it would carry out a visit to look at the tree and that it was happy to discuss with the resident the best way of deterring the pigeons from congregating near her home. The landlord also arranged for the scheme manager to deliver notes to all the surrounding properties requesting that nobody feeds the pigeons.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for keeping the garden tidy, maintained, and free from rubbish (including hedges and trees). The reference to how a resident is expected to maintain trees is vague, other than ensuring trees do not overhang neighbouring properties and public walkways. However, landlords would generally be responsible for some aspects of garden maintenance that a resident can’t be reasonably expected to undertake safely, such as trimming and felling tall trees, as this would require specialist skills. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord considered the resident’s request to remove the tree, as it would be expected to do this in light of any health and safety risks the tree itself posed.
13. In its initial response, the landlord confirmed that it was aware that the resident had raised the issue of the tree the previous year and that its arborists had confirmed at that time that the tree was in good health, which it believed to still be the case. This was a reasonable response and accorded with the evidence seen in this investigation.
14. Subsequent to this, the landlord acted appropriately by having its arborist reinspect the tree, in light of the specific concerns the resident raised in November 2021. This demonstrates that the landlord took these concerns seriously, and took robust action to ensure itself that its obligations were being met. The landlord was ultimately entitled to rely upon the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff member, who gave comprehensive responses to each of the resident points. They did not assess the tree as being a risk nor make any recommendations for it to be removed.
15. The landlord’s advice that it did not remove healthy trees unless they posed a danger/or causing damage and that it cannot cut down healthy trees because the resident considered the pigeons to be causing a nuisance to her was a reasonable response in the circumstances, and was in accordance with its tree maintenance and care policy. The tree maintenance and care policy stating that it will only fell trees for “sound arboricultural reasons”, such as when a tree is dead, dying or dangerous, or proven to be causing significant structural damage. It also sets out reasons that it does not consider grounds for the pruning or removal of trees, which includes “mess caused by insects or birds, or trees home to mammals including squirrels”. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to not remove the tree, was reasonable in the circumstances.
16. It is appreciated that the resident highlighted that she believed the landlord had removed trees in other parts of the local area for reasons other than those it outlined to her. However, the landlord’s actions in removing others tree that have no relationship with or impact on the resident’s dwelling, are beyond the scope of this investigation.
17. This service has seen evidence of the landlord discussing whether a management move would be suitable, in light of the resident’s concerns that persistent pigeon droppings may impact on her on her husband’s health conditions. In its stage two response in September 2021, the landlord confirmed that this had not been considered appropriate as there had been no evidence provided demonstrating that the pigeon droppings were having an detrimental impact on the resident’s or her husband’s health. Lacking medical evidence demonstrating a link between the pigeons and any detrimental impact on the resident’s or her husband’s health, the landlord was limited in what other solutions it could provide. Any further actions it may have taken would be more at its discretion, rather than anything it would be obligated to perform. It was unclear to what extent this was discussed with the resident, though the resident has indicated in correspondence with this Service that she did not want to move.

Complaint Handling

18. In considering the landlord’s complaint handling, when the resident reported her complaint on 26 April 2021, the landlord responded with its stage one response on 28 July 2021. The evidence shows the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated on 3 August 2021 with the landlord provided its stage two response on 6 September 2021.
19. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure, it states for stage one, it will aim to resolve complaints within 20 working days of receiving it. For stage two, it will aim to respond within a further 20 working days of receiving the escalation.
20. Given the facts, it is clear that the landlord did not act in accordance with its timeframes and delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint with its stage one response 45 working days, and to the resident’s escalation with its stage two response 4 working days, outside of its policy. Although the landlord’s stage two response did not impact the resident greatly, its stage one response was considerably outside of its published timescales and that expected by the Ombudsman.
21. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord acknowledged the delay with its stage one response, the delay caused an inconvenience and upset to the resident, and its apology was not enough to remedy the failing. Therefore it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the service failure warrants compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance of £100.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for it to remove a tree in her front garden.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

24. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling.
25. Payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord assess its complaints procedure to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.