Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202114454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114454

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

25 March 2022

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s suggested increase to the level of the resident’s service charge to pay for the clearance of the communal bin store.
2. The lack of signage in and rubbish and recycling collection from the communal bin store.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the communal bin store.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(g) and (m) respectively of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s suggested increase to the level of the resident’s service charge to pay for the clearance of the communal bin store.
2. The lack of signage in and rubbish and recycling collection from the communal bin store.
The resident has complained that she is dissatisfied with and is unwilling to pay the landlord’s suggested increase to the level of her service charge to pay for the clearance of the communal bin store. However, paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint, as this is not under the remit of this Service since we do not have the authority or expertise to determine the level of service charges in the way that a court or tribunal might, such as the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
In addition, the resident complains about the lack of signage in and rubbish and recycling collection from the communal bin store, which she has attributed to the landlord and its contractor. Nevertheless, the installation of signage and collection of rubbish and recycling from the communal bin store is carried by the local authority, and not the landlord or its contractor. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
Therefore, a determination will also not be made on this aspect of the complaint. This is because local authorities are only members of the Scheme in connection with their housing activities in relation to the provision or management of social housing, and not in respect of other matters that are not directly linked to their role as social landlords, such as providing signage for and collecting rubbish and recycling. These matters instead fall properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate, and not this Service.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports about the condition of the communal bin store, however, is within this Service’s jurisdiction to investigate and has been considered below.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat in a block managed by the landlord, which is the freeholder.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2021 to raise a stage one complaint about the recycling bins in her block overflowing with rubbish and not being cleared. She explained that this was causing her frustration and anxiety, as she had sent a significant number of emails to it in April 2021 requesting for something to be done about this. The resident explained that the recycling bins still remained overflowing and had not been cleared by the local authority. She added that there was no signage requesting that residents crush their recycling to create more space, or warning them that overflowing refuse would not be collected.
The resident also explained that she was overwhelmed by this matter, as she was the only person trying to find a way to resolve this. She stated that the issue was getting worse, and had a prolonged and significant impact on her and other residents. The resident additionally mentioned that she would not pay the landlord her monthly rent and service charge payments £366 until the issue was resolved. She explained that her experience of living in the property had been tainted due to the issue.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord’s records showed that it received the above complaint from the resident and that it sent out an acknowledgement of this to her.
The evidence provided by the landlord further showed that an internal email, circulated on 18 June 2021, explained that the site of the resident’s communal bin store had been identified by it as a hot spot area for refuse. It noted that its contractor was therefore attending this weekly on Fridays or Saturdays to clear excess bulk waste.
Additionally, the landlord recorded that letter had been sent out to all residents of the site in April 2021, and leaflets had been issued to them, regarding the excess waste, which it stated that residents had not adhered to. It noted that the local authority had been due to place signage up about this in the communal bin store, which had not been followed through with by them and that it agreed to follow up. The evidence provided by the landlord also showed that it stated that it would send out further letters to residents once the refuse collection dates had been confirmed, as these were not on the website. The landlord recorded that it emailed the resident on 21 June 2021 to confirm that the above actions had been taken following her complaint.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord emailed a stage one complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delayed response to her complaint and for any inconvenience caused. The landlord explained that it had reviewed the resident’s account, reached out to her directly, spoken to the relevant staff member responsible for the area, and they had provided detailed actions taken so far as explained in the internal email above. It explained that it was unable to uphold the complaint and understood the resident’s frustration with the large amount of uncompacted recycling in the waste area of the property, but it could not agree that the resident had experienced service failure on this occasion as it had taken the following actions in the bin store.
The landlord explained that its contractor had been scheduled to attend on Friday or Saturday every week to clear the recycling as required. Additionally, the local authority had been made aware of this, would be attending every two weeks to collect refuse, and was arranging for signage to be installed at the property to help prevent the issues there for which they were currently being chased. The landlord also explained that contact was due to be made with all of the site’s residents to confirm their responsibility when organising recycling. It advised the resident that it considered that the above actions were extensive and appropriate to resolve the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2021 following its complaint response and explained that she disagreed with its findings. She said that she had experienced a failure in the service by it because it did not take action after she had spent time chasing it up. The resident, however, explained that she was grateful for the confirmation of the actions that would be taken to prevent the issue from happening again in the future.
The landlord’s records showed that it treated the resident’s above correspondence as a final stage complaint from her and that, from 23 to 28 June 2021, she sent it numerous emails and photographs to raise further concerns regarding the refuse that still had not been collected.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that the contractor had not been able to attend the premises that weekend to collect refuse as the van that was normally used for this had been taken for a service. It stated that this was a one–off and that the contractor would attend on 29 June 2021. The landlord advised the resident to contact it if the issue had not been resolved by the next day for it to pick this up.
The resident emailed the landlord with another photograph on 13 July 2021, and she explained that the recycling bins had still not been emptied since she last sent an email to it. She stated that the external refuse had been largely cleared but, when she inspected this further, she noticed that the recycling had been put in the black bins. The resident said that other residents had since been piling their recycling on top of the recycling bins. She explained that the landlord had reassured her that this would be dealt with weekly, but she stated that this had not been the case. The resident considered that her service charge was not justified as the matter was not fully resolved.
The resident also mentioned that the actions that the landlord had advised that it would be taking in its stage one complaint response had still not been carried out, as there was no proper refuse clearance or signage. She explained that refuse that should be going to recycling was still being put in black bins as residents had no choice but to do this. It was not possible for residents to keep the bin store clear without signage in place warning of bins overflowing. The resident explained that she could not keep her refuse clear without the basic service from the landlord. She added that she had suffered significant anxiety and wanted to be compensated by it for this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 July 2021 with its final stage complaint response. It explained that it had now partially upheld her complaint, as it acknowledged that, due to an unforeseen circumstance, there was one occasion when the contractor could not attend as arranged, as the operative’s van had been taken for servicing. However, they did follow up with another visit to clear the waste. The landlord acknowledged that, due to this missed visit, the waste did pile up, which caused the resident a great deal of frustration.
The contractor mentioned above was described as having asked the landlord to offer their apologies for any inconvenience caused to the resident for the missed collection. It also explained that its residents had been issued with letters dated 30 June 2021 and with leaflets regarding the bins when they signed up for their properties. The refuse team had advised the landlord that their signage had been placed in the bin store, even though the resident had told it that there was no signage. It said that it had raised this with the refuse team, and they had confirmed that signs were on the wall and on the bins. The landlord had also spoken to the contractor to clear the recycling bins, and a quote would be provided for approval by senior staff.
The landlord further explained that it had also identified that the size of the bins was causing an issue, and that this had been discussed with the local authority to request bigger bins which would help with the issue. It reiterated that its contractors had been scheduled to attend on Friday or Saturday every week to clear the recycling as required, and that photographs had been requested by it from them to show the area before and after cleaning. There might be times when the contractor could not attend on Friday or Saturday, but they would attend weekly to clear the bulk left by residents.
The landlord said that it would continue to monitor the situation and would work closely with the contractor. If there were any further issues or concerns, then the resident was advised that she was free to report these to it, and it would take the appropriate action. The landlord also stated that, as the complaint had been partially upheld, the resident would be compensated with an offer of £50. This was to acknowledge the time and trouble that she had personally invested in bringing the matter to a satisfactory resolution.
The resident was additionally reassured by the landlord that any training needs that had been identified because of her experience were being acted upon by it. She was advised that the complaint would be used as part of a case study with the intention of improving its services to help with a better understanding of the root causes of such failures.
The resident then complained to the Ombudsman with photographs of the bin store. She explained that the situation had not improved and that the bins were overflowing. The resident added that she found the situation upsetting, as she had brought this to the landlord’s attention months earlier but the situation had still not improved, which she found distressing and sought a resolution and further compensation for.
The landlord subsequently provided this Service with further information about the resident’s case at our request, and this showed that it later explained to her that the local authority was not collecting the recycling bins because residents were not using them correctly. The photographs of the refuse that had been sent by the resident showed that the recycling was being mixed and carrier bags were being placed in there as well. The landlord had requested that the area be cleared, and a quote would be provided from a contractor for this but it advised that, if residents continued to misuse the bins, then the problem would continue, as these would not be emptied by the local authority.
Further correspondence from the landlord showed that it again sought quotes from its contractor to clear the communal bin store, and that it wrote directly to several individual residents to raise concerns about the single items which had not been correctly disposed of in the bins provided to them. They were informed that the cost of clearing would be added to the service charge, and they were asked to dispose the refuse correctly to ensure that this was collected by the local authority. Alternatively, the landlord would directly charge the residents who were found to be misusing the bin store.
The resident’s further correspondence and photographs showed that refuse had still not been collected, even though the landlord had acknowledged on several occasions that the property was a hot spot for refuse. She explained that she had suggested signage be placed in the bin store or CCTV, but none of these had been actioned by the landlord.
Records from the landlord showed that uncollected refuse was later cleared by a contractor, and that there was a notice already up in the block regarding disposal of refuse in the correct manner. A specific notice would also be obtained for the site from the contractor.
The landlord subsequently emailed the resident and explained that the bin stores were once again being misused after it had arranged for a contractor to clean the area a few weeks earlier. It confirmed that, if it had to keep making arrangements for bulk clearance, then it would need to charge all the residents in the block for this.
The landlord additionally explained that, if the refuse was found to be left by individual properties, then it would handle this accordingly, but it was unable to monitor the bin store 24 hours per day to prove who was causing the issue. It said that it was down to the residents in the block to be responsible and considerate of others that they share the facilities with and dispose of their refuse in the correct manner. The landlord stated that there were posters that clearly showed how to dispose of the refuse and what items could be recycled, and that it welcomed any suggestions from the resident or others living in the block to rectify the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the landlord has expressed her dissatisfaction to this Service with the landlord’s handling of her reports about the condition of the communal bin store after 29 July 2021, its response to her reports about this after that date is outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because, under the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence that her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports after 29 July 2021 has done so. This investigation will instead be limited to considering its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the communal bin store prior to that date, as it had the opportunity to respond to these under its complaints procedure.

Agreement, policies and procedures

In relation to the service charge from the landlord, the resident’s lease agreement states that “the relevant expenditure to be included in the Service Provision shall comprise all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with provision of services for the Building and the Estate.”
The lease agreement refers to the service charge for provision of services such as cleaning of common parts.
The lease agreement permits charges for the cost incurred by the landlord in “keeping the Estate adequately tended cleaned”.
The lease agreement allows charges for “costs incurred by the landlord in cleaning maintaining, repairing and renewing the bin stores on the estate”.
The lease agreement states that the landlord “may add to diminish modify or alter any service referred to in Clause 5.3 (Repair redecorate renew structure) or Clause 5.4 (lighting and cleaning of Common Parts) if by reason of any change of circumstances during the Term such addition diminution or alteration is in the opinion of the landlord reasonably necessary or desirable in the interests of good estate management or for the benefit of the occupiers of the Building”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that £50 will be paid for missed appointments by contractors when they have failed to attend an agreed appointment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the communal bin store

In line with the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for provision of services which includes maintaining the common parts such as the bin store used by the residents. It demonstrated that it complied with its obligations to maintain the bin store when it arranged for a contractor to collect the recycling after the resident raised her concerns about this in April 2021. The internal email evidence provided by the landlord dated 18 June 2021, showed that there were arrangements in place for a contractor to attend weekly to clear excess refuse before that date.
Furthermore, in the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 29 July 2021, it demonstrated that it was working closely with its contractor to resolve the issue, when it reassured the resident that it had spoken to the contractor and obtained quotes for the subsequent clearance of refuse. This would not mean, however, that the landlord was obliged to clear the excess rubbish or recycling, as the local authority was responsible for the signage and for collecting the refuse in the bin store.
The landlord demonstrated in its stage one complaint response that it had made the resident aware on 23 June 2021 that the local authority would put signage up, as they were responsible for this and the collection of refuse at the site. Throughout this, the landlord kept the resident updated via its above correspondence while it chased the local authority for responses regarding the signage being put up in the bin store. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take, as it was responsive to the resident’s concerns and complied with its obligation to maintain the bin store, which was also a common part of the estate, despite the local authority’s responsibility for collecting refuse from there.
It is nevertheless concerning that the landlord did not consider taking further steps, such as putting up its own signage or CCTV, while it followed up with the local authority to provide signage for the communal bin store. This should have been apparent from 15 June 2021, after the resident raised concerns about overflowing refuse not being collected by the local authority. It should therefore have taken some further action as an initial step towards preventing a build-up of refuse there. The landlord has also not provided specific dates when signage was provided by the local authority at the bin store, the presence of which was disputed by the resident.
However, the landlord demonstrated that it monitored the resident’s concerns when it subsequently acknowledged the continued misuse of the bin store by residents following a site visit by its staff. It then took reasonable action in line with its obligations to try and resolve this when it explained that it would have to continue to its bulk collection arrangements and to charge all residents for this unless those individuals responsible for this could be identified.
The landlord’s actions showed that it prioritised investigating the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal bin store and, therefore, that it acted appropriately. This is because its correspondence with its staff, as evidenced in internal emails circulated on 18 June 2021, demonstrated that it had concluded that the site was a “hot spot” area for refuse, and there were ongoing discussions by it to resolve the issue.
The landlord had also taken appropriate steps to provide the site’s residents with leaflets and sent out letters to them in April 2021, and subsequently, about the proper use of the bin store. It was unable to take enforcement action against individual residents for this at that time, as it could not prove which residents were responsible for not using the bin store appropriately. Nevertheless, the landlord took the appropriate steps mentioned above to try to resolve the matter.
As stated in the terms of the resident’s lease agreement above, the landlord will charge the residents for the provision of services which include keeping the communal bin store clean. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to advise the resident that, if the other residents were not recycling the refuse appropriately and the individuals could not be identified, it would continue to add this to the service charge as permitted by the lease, to ensure that it maintained the bin store in line with its obligation.
The landlord similarly took appropriate action t when it sought to avoid the further build-up of refuse by sourcing a contractor to clear the excess refuse in the communal bin store. The evidence provided by it demonstrated that it took reasonable action to do so, when it made a request for a quote from the contractor for a bulk clearance for the recycling bins, while waiting for the local authority to clear the main refuse after the resident sent several emails to it between 23 and 28 June 2021.
It is not disputed that some residents had been using the bin store inappropriately as explained by the resident and evidenced by the emails the landlord sent her to this effect. However, it is stated in the terms of her lease agreement that it will only carry out improvements if these are deemed necessary by it for estate management purposes. The landlord was therefore not under an obligation to provide CCTV to seek to identify those misusing the bin store, as this would be considered an improvement as outlined in the terms of the lease agreement above. It was instead permitted to comply with its obligation to maintain the site and to reassure the resident by providing her and other residents with relevant information regarding the proper use of the bin store.
The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings to the resident and demonstrated its willingness to put things right by offering her £50 compensation for the missed clearance of refuse from the bin store by its contractor on the weekend of 26 June 2021. This was in line with its above compensation policy for missed appointments and was therefore, reasonable redress for the missed refuse collection. Additionally, an apology was also offered for the missed bin clearance. This was in the landlord’s final stage complaint response to the resident of 29 July 2021, and showed that it sought to take appropriate action to put things right.
It is of concern that the resident reported that the condition of the bin store had an impact on her and caused her distress. However, the level of compensation awarded by the landlord above for the missed bin clearance, was in line with its compensation policy for missed appointments. This was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £50 in similar circumstances where has been a missed appointment. Remedies in this range may also be for cases where the impact experienced by the resident could include distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
In summary, the landlord adhered to the terms of the resident’s lease agreement in maintaining the bin store when it sought the services of a contractor to prevent the refuse from piling up further, after she raised her complaint about this. It also carried out extensive and appropriate actions to try and resolve the issue, including by writing to residents, liaising with the local authority for them to put up signage, and arranging bulk refuse clearances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the communal bin store.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the landlord took steps to avoid the build-up of the refuse in the communal bin store as part of its obligation to maintain the bin store, even though the local authority was responsible for signage in and collecting the refuse from the bin store.
The landlord complied with the terms of the resident’s lease agreement when it advised her that it would add the cost of clearing the bin store to the service charge bill for all residents in line with its obligations, if it could not identify the individuals responsible for this.
The landlord demonstrated that it was working to put things right and had learnt lessons from the complaint when it offered the resident compensation of £50, apologised for the missed bin clearance, and advised her that her complaint would be used as a case study to show that it had learnt lessons to prevent this from happening again.

Recommendation

It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord respond to the resident’s request for CCTV to explain if this will be installed in the communal bin store and, if not, why it will not do so.