Yorkshire Housing Limited — case 202503756

Decision Case ID 202503756 Decision type Investigation Landlord Yorkshire Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 7 April 2026 Background In August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to replace trees in her back garden with fencing. She advised of health issues within the household and said the trees were unmanageable and unsafe. She complained in February 2025 as the fence works had not been completed and she requested urgent action.

The landlord said the fencing would be completed by the end of March 2025. The fencing was completed in late April 2025. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for its delay and offered the resident £250 compensation, which the resident felt did not reflect the stress caused to her family. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fence request. Our decision (determination) There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fence request.

Reasons The trees in the resident’s garden were large conifer trees. Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, residents are responsible for the maintenance of gardens, including trees. The policy also states the landlord is responsible for tree works where trees are deemed to be dangerous or causing structural damage. The landlord did not inspect the trees until 19 November 2024 and again on 18 December 2024, which was 3 months after the resident’s request on 24 August 2024.

However, there is no evidence that the trees posed any danger to the property or its occupants. It is therefore unclear whether the delay caused any risk or significant detriment to the resident. The landlord’s inspection on 18 December 2024 did not identify any tree safety issues, but it acknowledged that removal of part of the trees would assist the energy efficiency works already underway. There was no evidence provided to confirm the trees were dangerous or causing structural damage or specific medical recommendation or evidence that the tree removal was necessary for health-related reasons for the resident’s husband or son.

Nor was there evidence that removal of the trees was necessary for the planned extension to the resident’s property or energy efficiency works that were also taking place. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s trees with fencing, which demonstrated a flexible, solution-focused approach as well as regard for the vulnerabilities within the household. The resident said the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates caused her stress and frustration.

This was understandable, as the landlord did not confirm the date the fencing would be installed by until its stage 1 complaint response on 10 March 2025, in which it said the works would be done by the end of March 2025. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its communication failings in its complaint responses and identified relevant learning to improve communication with residents moving forward. The resident acknowledged that other improvement works were also taking place at the same time.

In the circumstances, some disruption was unavoidable and was not solely related to the fencing works. The landlord was also responsive to safety concerns the resident raised regarding her son. It amended the fence design at the resident’s request, and provided temporary fencing until the permanent fencing was installed. This was positive and showed it listened to the resident’s concerns. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the fencing works did not start until 21 April 2025.

They were then concluded on 24 April 2025. The landlord apologised for its delay and offered the resident £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. These were appropriate steps to put things right. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with its compensation policy for moderate service failures that caused distress and inconvenience. The compensation was proportionate for the communication failings and a delay of less than 4 weeks and is also in line with our compensation guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident the £250 it offered, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid.

Learning The landlord said it had shared the resident’s communication concerns with the repair teams involved and highlighted the importance of keeping customers informed throughout. It advised that its new internal repairs system will provide a clearer view of all communication, which will in turn improve its monitoring of agreed timescales. These were positive steps that should help prevent future occurrences.