The Guinness Partnership Limited (202113997)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113997

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 November 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Increases in service charges.
2. Fly tipping in the communal bin store area.
3. Installation of a timer for communal lighting.
4. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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 paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a) Increases in service charges

The resident’s initial complaint arose following an increases in her annual service charge. The resident challenged the amount of the increase and said that it was unfair to increase the charges when there were unresolved ongoing issues in the communal areas such as fly tipping and unnecessary constant lighting.
Paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘concern the level or amount of service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.’
The resident can find further information about the First Tier Tribunal service which considers disputes around service charges online at First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy and lives in a two bedroom flat on the first floor of a block.
The resident pays regular service charges to the landlord towards maintenance and communal services within the block. This includes communal facilities such as parking, bin store area, CCTV, and communal lighting. The resident has expressed concerns about some of these facilities in her complaint.
The landlord’s responses to these concerns have been complicated by an unresolved legal issue with a neighbouring block of 13 flats which has a different registered social landlord. At the time of the resident’s complaint, residents in the neighbouring block did not contribute any service charge to the landlord despite having a designated parking space on the site. The landlord has said that this issue was brought to their attention by the resident’s complaint.
The amount of service charge payable by the neighbouring residents to the landlord was at the time of the complaint an unresolved issue being worked on by the landlord’s legal team. One of the resident’s complaints is that fly-tipping has occurred in the communal bin area and there is evidence that the bin area has been inappropriately used by some residents in the neighbouring block.
On 18 March 2021, the resident contacted the complaints team by phone and discussed her concerns about service charges. Notes taken by the landlord say that the landlord would provide a response within its 20 working day target timeframe. The resident’s various concerns were set out more fully in a letter sent the following month.
On the 15 April 2021, the resident sent a letter of formal complaint to the landlord disputing the level of service charges which had increased. The letter was copied to a local MP and signed by the resident as well as several other residents within her block. The complaint raised the following issues:
1. Communal lighting – on constantly which the resident said was unnecessary, environmentally unfriendly and more costly for residents.
2. Fly-tipping – the resident said that residents of the neighbouring block have left bulky items such as beds and mattresses in the bin area without paying a service charge for the service.
3. Other matters – such as window cleaning, CCTV, playground area and other estate services were also raised.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident. In its response, the landlord said:
1. It was aware of repeated issues with fly tipping. The local council was also aware and agreed to visit regularly and clear up any identified rubbish.
2. It had found evidence that residents of the neighbouring block were disposing of their rubbish in the communal bins. It ‘needed to obtain further legal advice to understand how we can rectify this.’
3. It was ‘looking in to’ the possibility of installing a gate as the resident had suggested as a measure to prevent fly tipping and would confirm if this was possible to the resident.
4. An appointment had been made on 28 April 2021 for an electrician to attend to scope the possibility of installing a timer for the communal lights.
5. The CCTV was working although the store cupboard needed repair which had been booked.
6. It would keep the resident updated on measures taken on fly tipping and clarified the other queries raised on service charges.
On 13 May 2021, the resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident said there was no plan or strategy in place to deal with the issues she had raised.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord sent a stage two response to the resident. The landlord said
1. It was ‘looking at legal options’ to deal with the fly tipping situation.
2. The repair job for the communal lighting was not complete and had been rebooked for 21 June 2021
3. It had arranged for bi-weekly meetings between various internal teams and said it would provide fortnightly updates on resolving the outstanding issue of fly tipping to the resident.
The electrician appointment for 21 June 2021 was kept and 18 lights in the communal areas were fixed as a result. However, there is no indication that a timer installation was attempted or considered during the visit.
On 24 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed concern that her complaint had been closed. She said that there were two outstanding issues (the communal lighting and fly tipping) and that her complaint should not have been closed until they were resolved. The resident requested written updates every two weeks.
In August 2021, the landlord acknowledged in a response to an enquiry made by a local councillor that the communal lighting issues had still not been resolved. The response said “although the repairs for the lights were identified and repaired this is not what we had asked to be done as part of the resolution to (the resident’s) complaint. It is clear that our record keeping on this occasion has been poor. I have found no information to clarify if our engineers who have attended to the appointments mentioned above have assessed if the communal lights can have a timer fitted to help with the costs of having the communal lights on constantly.” A new electrician appointment for the communal lighting timer was made for Tuesday 24 August 2021.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord emailed the neighbouring landlord and asked them to notify their residents about the fly tipping issue.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord’s legal team contacted the neighbouring landlord and asked for a point of contact in resolving the service charge issue.
On 16 September 2021, this service was contacted by a councillor on the resident’s behalf regarding a lack of updates on the outstanding issues in the complaint.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord sent a further response to a local councillor. The landlord acknowledged that it ‘failed to keep our promise’ to update the resident every weeks. It said that the job to install the timer on the communal lighting was now scheduled for 6 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged there had been poor communication regarding this job as well as scheduling issues. The landlord also said that appropriate action had been taken where the perpetrators of fly tipping were known. However, no evidence of any warning letters or other follow-up actions have been seen by this service.
On 16 November 2021, the resident contacted this service and confirmed that the CCTV was working, the communal lighting was on a timer but there had been no further update provided about the fly tipping issue. The resident has confirmed in a recent phone conversation that no gate has been installed in the bin area and she has received no further updates from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Fly tipping

The resident reported the problem of fly tipping in her initial telephone complaint made on 15 March 2021 as well as in the letter of 18 April 2021. The landlord has indicated that it was a known problem that they were aware of it from carrying out site visits. The resident also reported this separately to the local authority and the landlord has said it has contacted them to ensure regular visits are carried and the rubbish taken away when it accumulates.
The landlord’s Estate Management Policy says that it ‘encourages residents to report fly tipping to the local authority and or environmental health department.’ However, it also states that “We expect customers to dispose of bulky items, other refuse and medical waste in accordance with local authority guidelines and says that “if we are required to dispose of bulk rubbish because customers have not followed these guidelines, we will seek to enforce relevant tenancy or lease conditions.”
The landlord’s document “Managing fly-tipping and bulk rubbish removal” sets out possible actions the landlord can take in response to reports of fly tipping. These response include:
1. review or change the number and size of bins
2. provide educational material for customers on waste and recycling
3. provide jointly branded posters and leaflets, and run neighbourhood clean-up initiatives such as ‘Love Where You Live’
4. issue warning letters to known perpetrators
5. determine whether known fly-tippers can be prosecuted/fined, and if so, promote this locally
6. work in partnership with the police and local council.
7. use or install CCTV as a deterrent.
8. refer details of offenders to the Police
9. identify individuals by raking thru rubbish – send warning letters
10. consider gating and fencing-off estates that are near other HA’s or privately owned properties.
During the complaint investigation, the landlord attempted to get local knowledge from its officers on the ground about the situation. This was a reasonable approach to understand the situation better and best determine a proportionate and appropriate course of action as listed above.
Neighbourhood officers reported that it was known from raking through rubbish that the site was being used by residents in the neighbouring block. The manager responsible for grounds maintenance said that any evidence of fly tipping would be passed on to neighbourhood officers to take action and they were ‘only on this scheme for a short time a week, which doesn’t give us much insight.’
The landlord says it contacted the local authority regarding the issue but the evidence suggests that this has been to ensure regular bin collection and clear specific fly tips rather than to ask the council to take pro-active or preventive action to reduce fly tipping.
The only evidence seen by this service of specific actions taken by the landlord as a preventative measure against further fly tips was an internal email saying that the landlord had contacted the neighbouring block’s landlord asking them to warn their residents in August 2021.
The landlord’s overall response to the reports of fly tipping was not in accordance with its policy documents outlined above. Given the lack of detailed on site information, the landlord could have asked ground crews to spend more time in the area or make a dedicated visit to carry out a raking through rubbish exercise and obtain further evidence about perpetrators.
No evidence has been seen of any warning letters being sent by the landlord. Similarly, there is no evidence of any educational materials being sent to any of the residents of either block. No evidence has been seen by this service that residents of the neighbouring block are aware that dumping rubbish on the site is prohibited or could result in a fine or prosecution. Local residents’ awareness about the issue could and should have been raised by the landlord following the resident’s complaint if not by a warning letter then by the posting of educational materials.
The resident raised the fly tipping issue repeatedly in March and April but the neighbouring landlord was not contacted until August, about four months later. More pro-active action could have been taken by the landlord itself and it should have prioritised working with the other landlord more highly.
No evidence has been seen that the resident’s suggestion of a gate has been given serious consideration. If it was given consideration during the complaints process then the resident was not informed one way or the other regarding the landlord’s intentions to install a gate. Again, this was a clear failure to take the appropriate action as set out in its policy document.

Communal Lighting

The landlord has said that prior to the resident’s complaint, concerns were raised by other residents about security and a decision was taken to have the communal lights on constantly. However, the landlord agreed that the resident had legitimate concerns about the cost of this (reflected in an increased service charge) and undertook to put the lighting on a timer to come on in the evenings.
The landlord says in its repairs policy that its target response times are on its website. The website states that the landlord aims to respond to routine repair requests with 28 days.
The landlord became aware of the request for the timer on 18 March 2021. Despite two separate attempts to set appointments to deal with the request for a timer, the matter was not resolved until 6 October 2021 some six and a half months later, well over the 28 day target.
During the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that its internal communication had been poor in resolving this issue. The electricians attending the appointment were not given clear enough instructions about what task they were expected to perform. This was evidenced in June 2021 when 18 communal lights were fixed or replaced but no progress was made on the installation of a timer. Given that the resident’s complaint had already been escalated to stage two at this point, the landlord should have taken much greater care to ensure the work was carried out as requested.
The landlord has apologised to the resident for the acknowledged communication failure and the consequent delay but no financial redress has been provided to the resident as part of the complaints process. There was therefore an overall failure in the landlord’s handling of the communal lighting issue.

Complaints Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints should be responded to withing twenty working days. However, there is evidence showing that the landlord informed the resident after her initial complaint that the first stage response would take longer than usual due to the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Although the complaint letters themselves were sent in a relatively timely manner, the follow up actions taken as a result – such as the fixing of the lights – took significantly longer to perform. There was also a noticeable tendency to say matters were being handled by their legal team when this was unhelpful and unnecessary. There was no legal obstruction to the landlord taking more direct action (for example on fly tipping) to alleviate the resident’s concerns as expressed in her initial complaint.
The landlord did not follow up sufficiently on the commitments made in its stage one complaint response to investigate installation of a gate or get legal advice about the fly tipping. No further information was given to the resident about the outcome of the legal advice or installation of the gate.
The resident has expressed concern that the landlord also failed to adhere to its promise in its final stage response to keep her updated every two weeks on progress with resolving the two outstanding issues (fly tipping and communal lighting) and with the legal issue of determining service charges with the neighbouring block.
The landlord has acknowledged in a response to an elected representative of the resident that it ‘failed to keep our promise’ on updating the resident regularly. Again, an apology was made but no financial redress has been provided for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures. The landlord has also not demonstrated any learning from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fly tipping in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about installation of a timer for the communal lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about complaints handling.

Reasons

No evidence has been seen of any substantial pro-active or preventative measures taken by the landlord in line with its relevant policies about fly tipping since the resident’s complaint.
There was a substantial delay on the installation of the timer for the communal lighting caused partly by poor internal communication by the landlord.
The landlord did not follow up on its promise to update the resident and has provided no financial redress for the above service failures as part of putting things right.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £400 compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to take appropriate action on fly tipping
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delay in installing a communal lighting timer
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
It is ordered that the landlord provide an update to the resident and this service within four weeks regarding steps it has taken since November 2021 to resolve outstanding issues with fly tipping and service charge collection from the neighbouring block.