Yorkshire Housing Limited (202104766)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104766

Yorkshire Housing Limited

13 July 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of neighbours incorrectly storing their bins.
2. response to reports of wider anti-social behaviour in the estate.
3. handling of repairs to the guttering.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. It provided a blank assured tenancy agreement.
The property is one of eight flats in a block on the resident’s estate.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported ASB, mainly relating to the dumping of rubbish on the estate, on several occasions between 2016 and 2020 with the landlord closing a case on 3 June 2020. This investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of the events between 2016 and the closure of the case on 3 June 2020 as there is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint at the time the events occurred.
This investigation will consider events from 6 October 2020 when the resident contacted the landlord regarding rubbish left outside a neighbour’s flat as this is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s subsequent formal complaint raised on 10 March 2021 regarding this issue.
On 6 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord regarding rubbish left outside the rear of a neighbour’s flat (flat x). He attached photos. The landlord sent a letter to the tenant of flat x on 9 October 2020 regarding the “poor condition of garden” with a “big pile of litter”, referencing that an inspection had taken place on 7 October 2020. It gave them five days to tidy the garden.
On 18 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord raising a concern about the tenants from flats x and another flat y leaving bins outside of the bin cupboards. He advised neither neighbour had a key for the outdoor bin storage so it was open all of the time. He said rubbish was overflowing onto the floor which smelt and was attracting rats, foxes and dogs. He said this was a health hazard.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email advising that a Tenant Management Officer (TMO) would be in touch shortly to obtain details. The landlord’s internal communications show it raised an internal request to create a case and assign the issue to an TMO.
On 25 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord advising the bins were still outside and that he had not heard back from the landlord.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord sent letters to the tenants of flats x and y and to three other tenants in the neighbouring block on the estate. Its letter referred to a requirement in the tenancy agreement to keep their garden in a neat and tidy condition and not to cause a nuisance. It asked them to house their bins in the designated bin storage area and not on the communal path. It gave them 10 days to clear the bin storage areas. Its letter also said that they must remove discarded furniture and carpet that had been “dumped” in the bin store which was inhibiting use of the store for bins. It advised it would remove items and re-charge the cost to their rent accounts if items were not removed.
On 2 March 2021, the landlord called the resident and left a voicemail advising of the action taken. On 3 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident confirming that letters had been sent, that it would arrange for the sofa to be removed if no one took responsibility and also advised that it had raised a repair for the drainpipe to be fixed.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord raised a job for the sofa to be removed.
On 10 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that bins were still outside meaning friends and family had to walk around them which “was embarrassing”. He said that doors to two bin stores were left open for anyone to access, including animals. This was a health hazard. The drainpipe had not been fixed. He complained about the lack of any update provided by the landlord. He said he would escalate the matter unless the issues were not addressed by the end of that week.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord’s TMO visited the bin store area on the estate.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident advising the sofa had been removed outside his neighbour’s property and that it had carried out an inspection of the bin stores and identified various issues. It said it would be dealing with each tenant separately and addressing the whole scheme at some point in the near future.
On 12 March 2021, the resident replied thanking the landlord for removing the sofa asking if it had taken any action to stop the neighbour dumping rubbish outside in the future as this had happened on previous occasions and would happen again unless it addressed the issue. The resident sent further photos taken that day of a brown bin still outside that had not been put back into the storage areas. He said the landlord had not provided an update about the drainpipe.
On 23 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the drainpipe had been reported to its repairs team on 5 March 2021 however it was not classed as an emergency. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the neighbour who had left the sofa outside. It said it was dealing with the tenants who have cluttered bin stores but it had to give them time to address the issues themselves. If they did not, the landlord said it would arrange clearance and recharge them with the cost. It advised a bin store inspection was planned for later that week.
On 23 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that a neighbour’s van had been stolen. He said the types of lettings the landlord was making was having an “enormous detrimental effect on the neighbourhood”.
On 29 March 2021, the parties discussed during a call the issue of wider antisocial behaviour on his estate. They exchanged further emails on same date when the resident gave more details of his ASB complaint. This concerned a number of tenants on the estate who were alcoholics, drug-dealers and drug-takers who were making it unsafe for the other residents in the area. This included tenants x and y in his block. The estate had become “a no go area”. He referenced the high crime in the area. He said he and other residents have had to install their own CCTV for security purposes. They were frightened to report incidents for fear of reprisals.
The resident advised the majority of residents who lived within the block of 8 flats were over 55 years of age, had lived there peacefully for over 20 years and were all law-abiding citizens who used to be very proud of their living area. He said they worked full time to pay their rent and bills on time and were not supported by the state. The residents the landlord was putting into theese properties were unemployed, young and rely on the state to pay their bills. The landlord was not managing the issues they were causing.
On 30 March 2021, its TMO visited the bin store area on the estate.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord sent a formal tenancy warning letter to the tenant of flat y who had continued to leave bins outside, obstructing the communal paths. It said if they continued to do this it would inform local authority’s Environmental Enforcement (EE) team who oversaw the correct storage of residential waste bins.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response. It acknowledged that the resident felt the landlord’s communication with residents needed to be better. It apologised for not letting him know about the actions it had taken on the bin store issue. The matter was still on going and it would keep him updated. Regarding his comment that he felt the area was not inspected and that this was not communicated to residents, an inspection was carried out on 26 March 2021 and its TMO had advised he visited the area often and that he would be visiting again that week. It said that on future visits, its TMO would put a note through his door so he knew when a visit had taken place. Its Estates team had been asked to clear the bin stores and its officer had spoken to the resident about the allocations of flats x and y separately.
The landlord said it was clear that he loved where he lived but acknowledged that the resident had told it that he felt frightened there. It said its Tenancy Enforcement (TE) team was taking legal action against tenant of flat y but this was not a quick process. It asked him to report problems to it, the police and the local authority even if it is anonymous as it did help with investigations. It referred to his comment that residents had CCTV and asked if he felt they needed more security. It said its TMO would work more closely with other local agencies and the community to help make the area a place he was proud of.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord raised a job for rubbish in the bin stores (relating to four addresses) to be removed. It advised the resident of this action taken including the warning letter sent to the tenant of flat y who had continued to leave his bin outside. It said if he still refused to house his bin in the bin store and left them out then this could be reported to the local authority EE team.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the bin stores had been cleared of rubbish. Its internal communications show the landlord ordered locks for the bin stores.
On or around 26 April 2021, the resident told the landlord that the issues had not been fully addressed and he requested to escalate his complaint. The parties discussed the problem of ASB in his local area during a call and the resident followed this up with an email addressed to the landlord’s Head of Customer Independence (HCI). Within his communication, he asked the landlord what action it was about the “concerning rate of crime on this street”.
The landlord’s internal email dated 4 May 2021 show its HCI emailed Housing Managers asking for an update on what was happening on the resident’s estate. In a response dated 5 May 2021, they said the issues raised were valid and said were caused by a small number of households having a detrimental impact on the community. They detailed the obstacles they faced in eradicating drug-related ASB and crime on the estate but suggested internal teams meet to discuss what action was best.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 5 May 2021 show its TMO raised a job for lock changes on for bin cupboards, including those belonging to the tenants of flats x and y.
The landlord issued a final response on 12 May 2021. It acknowledged that the resident had said that it had not addressed the issues raised.
It confirmed the issues were the broken drainpipe, the missing lock on the bin store and tenants in the block who left their bins in the wrong place. He had also raised the issue of wider anti-social behaviour on the estate and asked what it was doing about it. Regarding the drainpipe, this had now been fixed. It said a job had been logged with its subcontractor to fix the lock and hopefully this should be completed shortly.
Regarding the neighbours who were leaving their bins out, while it could send letters to tenants asking them to be more thoughtful, it is not something it could take enforcement action on as it was not part of the tenancy agreement. It suggested that he could contact the local authority EE team and it provided contact details. However, it said that if he did not get a satisfactory response, it would contact the EE team to follow this up for him.
Regarding the wider anti-social behaviour issues on the estate, it recently held an internal meeting so the different teams could talk about further actions it could take to address the issues. It was developing an initial action plan to address the issues but said a more detailed plan would be developed to underpin this. Initial actions were:
1. Focus on working with the local ward partnership team to make sure there is a joined-up approach to issues on the estate
2. Follow up with local councillors and other stakeholders to ensure it gets the support it needed to deal with the issues
3. Review the local lettings plan to ensure that lettings are suitable and do not add to the issues
4. Estate walkabout to make the landlord more visible
The landlord advised it was taking his concerns about ASB on his estate very seriously and it would continue to focus on addressing the issues. It urged the resident to keep telling it about the issues he was experiencing.
On 25 May 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage two response.
In response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request, on 2 August 2021 the landlord provided details about emergency injunctions taken out in November 2020 against a known drug dealer who lived on the resident’s street and another tenant who had got into dispute with each other and resulted in arson attacks. It also provided evidence of its communications with the local authority about attending police and local authority PACT meetings. Further, it provided its action plan and its future strategy to tackle drug related crime included investing in mobile CCTV and issuing a regular newsletters/ social media messaging to all residents and updating them on legal actions and promoting crime reduction techniques.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of neighbours incorrectly storing their bins;

There are outdoor bin stores for the tenants of the resident’s block to keep their bins in until rubbish collection day when tenants are required to place bins by the collection point.
In response to the resident’s report regarding the tenants of flats x and y not using the bin stores and leaving bins and rubbish outside on the communal path, the landlord inspected the bin store area and then wrote to these tenants asking them to use their bin stores and to remove furniture and rubbish that had been inappropriately left. The letters advised if items were not removed within 10 days, it would arrange for their removal and re-charge the cost to the tenants. It inspected the area again after the 10 days and arranged for furniture that still remained to be removed. It also sent a more strongly worded tenancy warning letter to tenant y who had continued to leave their bins outside.
These steps taken by the landlord to address the issue reported were appropriate. In its stage one response the landlord confirmed the actions it had taken although it acknowledged and apologised to the resident for failing to provide an update after his initial report of 18 February. Whilst there was a slight delay by landlord in letting the resident know about what it was doing to address his concern, this was less than two weeks, therefore its apology together with its assurance that it would inform him of future inspections, was reasonable in the circumstance.
Following its stage one response, the landlord arranged for missing locks and keys to bin stores including those belonging to tenants of flats x and y to be replaced to prevent anyone else dumping rubbish there. In its final response, it explained it could not take enforcement action for this issue as it was not part of the tenancy agreement however advised the resident of the option to contact the local authority EE team if the issue persisted. As local authority EE teams are responsible for dealing with fly tipping and issues concerning the correct removal of household waste, this was appropriate advice. Further, the landlord’s offer to contact the EE team if the matter was not resolved, was reasonable.
Therefore, the action taken by landlord to address the concern raised regarding bin stores not been used appropriately was reasonable demonstrates that the landlord was sufficiently proactive in resolving the issue.

Response to reports of wider anti-social behaviour in the estate.

In this case the landlord acknowledged that there was a known and ongoing issue with drug-related ASB and high crime in the resident’s area including on his street. Its internal communications show it also acknowledged that more needed to be done to address the issue. It is clear from this evidence that the landlord felt there were obstacles that it needed to overcome when trying to resolve this problem which included difficulties in obtaining sufficient evidence and a lack of support from the police.
The landlord’s ASB policy makes clear that the key to successful and prompt interventions is to work with agencies including the police, local authorities, social services and support providers to tackle and prevent ASB. Its policy also states that the landlord will play an active role in local agency partnerships to reduce antisocial behaviour, including the sharing of data and information, and the participation in community remedies for any of its customers perpetrating antisocial behaviour. Additionally, its policy says it will keep complainants and the wider communication updated where appropriate.
In late March 2021, the resident reported that he and other residents in his block felt unsafe in their homes due to ASB and crime and feared that reporting it would result in reprisals. He raised a concern about the landlord’s letting’s policy allowing young, unemployed drug/alcohol dependent tenants occupy flats in the vicinity. He wanted to know what the landlord was doing to address the issue.
The landlord discussed the issue with the resident during a phone call and advised in its stage one response that its TE team was taking legal action against tenant y but explained this was not a quick process and advised the resident to continue to report problems to it/the police and the local authority even if it was anonymous.
The landlord’s internal communications confirm that its TE team was in the process of taking legal action against tenants on his estate who were involved with drug-related crime. This is something the landlord reiterated to the Ombudsman on 2 August 2021 when it also provided details of emergency injunctions that it had taken in November 2020 against a known drug dealer who lived on the resident’s street and a tenant from his block whom had gotten into a dispute with each which resulted in arson attacks.
After the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with its stage one response, it subsequently held an internal meeting between different teams to develop a long-term action plan to tackle the issue. In its final response to the resident, the landlord provided details of four initial actions it had identified during the meeting which it said would be the first steps to address the problem. The first two actions involved working more closely with the local authority agency partnership and following up actions with other third party agencies to help ensure there was a joined-up approach to tackle the issues on the estate. Internal communications and its updated action plan provided to this Service show the landlord followed up on this by subsequently attending police and local authority PACT meetings which were held every six weeks. These were attended by the local police, councillors and other partners and were aimed at resolving and prioritising local issues including ASB.
Other actions it set out in its final response was reviewing the local lettings plan to ensure that lettings were suitable and did not add to the issues. It also said it would do Estate Walkabouts to make it more visible.
Therefore, the legal action the landlord was already progressing against those tenants it believed were involved in ASB/crime and its meeting held to establish action points to tackle the problem indicates that the landlord was taking the issues reported by the resident seriously. It acknowledged more needed to be done and its commitment to working with other agencies to tackle ASB related crime in the wider community was appropriate in the circumstance of the complaint. On 2 August 2021, the landlord also advised this Service that it was working on a longer-term strategy which included investing in mobile CCTV and issuing a regular newsletters/ social media messaging to all local residents – updating them on legal actions and promoting crime reduction techniques.
Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the wider ASB experienced by the resident on the estate has been distressing for him, the action the landlord took and commitment to continue to focus on addressing the issue, was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy.

Handling of repairs to the gutter

It is not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord when the resident first reported there was a broken gutter pipe. However, it is evident from the parties’ email exchanges that on 3 March 2021 the landlord advised it had ordered the drainpipe to be fixed therefore indicating it was reported shortly before this.
On 10 March 2021 the resident chased this repair with the landlord and on 23 March 2021 said the matter was reported to its repairs team on 5 March 2021 however that the job was not classed as an emergency.
The broken guttering was not addressed by the landlord in its stage one response and in his escalation request the resident complained it had still not had been fixed. In its stage two final response the landlord said it believed the broken guttering had been fixed but to let it know if that was not the case.
In response to the Ombudsman’s further request made for the landlord’s repair records, on 4 July 2022 it told us that the job to clear the guttering at the rear of the property was completed on 23 June (2021).
The lack of any repair records or logs provided to this Service means we have not been able to verify when exactly the repair was raised and if the repair took place when the landlord said it did. It is noted that the advice provided to the resident on 3 March and 23 March about when it had raised the matter with its repair team was also contradictory. This indicates there is an issue with the landlord’s records around repairs which constitutes a record-keeping failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence to suggest the broken drainpipe was causing any major issues and therefore the landlord’s advice to the resident that it was not being treated as an emergency seems appropriate. The landlord did not provide this Service details of its repair policy when requested nonetheless as it took more than three months from when it was first reported in March until the 23 June 2021 to resolve the issue, this indicates there was a delay by the landlord with providing the required repair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of neighbours incorrectly storing their bins.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of wider anti-social behaviour in the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling repairs to the guttering.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to address the issues raised about rubbish and bin storage areas not being used appropriately which were reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a problem with wider ASB which was drug-related on the resident’s estate and that more needed to be done. The steps taken by the landlord during the complaints process were reasonable and demonstrates it was committed to tackling the issue on a long-term basis.
The landlord did not promptly deal with resident’s report of broken guttering at the rear of the property building and there was a failure to provide this Service with repair records relating to this repair.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping around repairs and take steps to ensure comprehensive records are kept showing when issues are reported by tenants and when repairs are provided.
2. Pay the resident £150.00 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the broken guttering and for poor record-keeping in relation to repairs.