Guinness Housing Association Limited (202113524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113524

Guinness Housing Association Limited

7 October 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:
1. Reports of refuse and fly tipping.
2. The storage of the resident’s bike.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a block within an estate with several blocks and open access from the street. There is a bin area housing several bins and recycling bins, and there is a patch of waste land near to the bin space. Another housing association owns a block opposite the resident’s estate.
There are bike pods available for residents to store their bikes. The pods are managed by an external company and residents must apply to get a space.
The Landlord’s Estate Management Policy states:
1. “We will provide estate management services in accordance with the terms set out in the tenancy or lease agreement. Service charges will generally cover the cost of services and facilities which are not covered by the rent”.
2. “Where we provide a cleaning service to maintain the standard of communal areas and/or grounds maintenance and gardening services to our estates this will be in accordance with our agreed standard specifications”.
3. “We expect our customers, their household and their visitors, to keep communal areas, especially entrances, hallways and fire escape routes free from obstructions (e.g. personal items, bicycles, mobility scooters, door mats, refuse etc.). If we feel it is proportionate, we will take action to remedy any issues that concern us. This action may include but is not limited to the removal of items, use of torts notice, and other legal action such as injunctions”.
4. “We expect customers to dispose of their household waste appropriately, using the facilities provided”.
5. “We expect customers to dispose of bulky items, other refuse and medical waste in accordance with local authority guidelines and using local services and arrangements. This may involve paying a fee which we expect the customer to meet. 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 and we may levy a service charge to the estate”.
6. “We encourage customers to report fly-tipping to the local authority and/or environmental health department”.
7. “Where appropriate, we will work with environmental health departments and other local service providers to prevent a build up of refuse”.
8. “As part of our commitment to facilitate an attractive and well-maintained environment we will attempt to identify people responsible for dumping refuse or fly-tipping (whether in internal or external communal areas). We will pursue enforcement action against perpetrators, which if they are tenants or leaseholders, will affect their tenancies or leases”.
The landlord’s Clear Corridor Policy states that areas in communal areas should be clear.
The local authority collects the bins for the estate weekly from the bin shelter area. The local authority also clears bulk waste, including fly-tipped items from the bin area on a weekly basis. The landlord’s procedure for the resident’s block is to get the bin area ready for the local authority’s refuse collectors, tidying up overflowed rubbish. It works around collection days to clear any overflowing bins/recycling bins/the floor and litter pick. If anything is then dumped, it will be collected at the next bulk collection day. The landlord’s internal correspondence also indicates that as some resident fill bins with the wrong waste, it takes time to separate recyclable waste from household waste to prevent overflowing.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms that the bin area is not attended to on a daily basis as its grounds team needs to attend to over 20 other areas over the week.

Summary of Events

On 18 February 2021 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She stated that:
1. The bins at the block were always full and overflowing, with rubbish on the floor. The refuse collectors did not pick up rubbish on the floor which the caretaker had to place in the bins.
2. There was an extra bin that did not fit the bin shelter, and which therefore spoilt the appearance of the estate.
3. People dumped rubbish on a patch of land adjacent to the bin area.
4. She would like the landlord to put a gate across the entrance to the estate to prevent people from outside coming in and depositing rubbish, move the extra bin to where it belonged, use CCTV to catch fly-tippers, educate residents about recycling, and calculate how much money was spent removing fly-tipped rubbish and how much residents contributed to this then comparing the sum to the cost of installing a gate.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that on 4 March 2022 it moved the extra bin to the correct part of the estate.
After confirming with the resident the detail of her complaint, on 17 March 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It had removed the black bin by 5 March 2021.
2. Mopeds/motorbikes that the resident had mentioned should not be parked in the communal area and it had asked the owners to make alternative parking arrangements.
3. Its Planned Maintenance and Asset Team was considering the resident’s request for the installation of CCTV cameras and gates, but it worked within budgetary constraints. It would advise of any updates.
4. Its Customer Liaison and Estates Teams were working with the local authority to improve the situation with fly-tipping. It had asked the neighbouring landlord to warn their residents to only use their own bins. The local authority had its own anti-littering initiative and could also investigate reports of fly tipping.
5. When the Customer Liaison Team had reminded the resident not to store her bike along the communal walkway, it was not singling the resident out or taking this action in response to her reports of fly-tipping, but applying its policies on fire-safety. The resident could apply to hire a bike space on the ground floor.
6. Its Health and Safety and Asset Compliance teams were investigating residents who had metal gates, but this was not an issue that could be resolved easily.
In summary, the landlord advised that it did not find a failure in service and therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It would continue to monitor the situation and use the resources at its disposal.
An internal email sent on 23 April 2021 indicates that the landlord had contacted the local authority for assistance with dealing with fly–tipping and was awaiting its response. The Ombudsman has not received evidence that the local authority responded.
On 23 May 2021 the resident emailed stating that she had not received an update following the Stage 1 response and asked how long she should wait. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
On 3 June 2021 the resident escalated her complaint stating that the outcome she wanted was for the landlord to formulate a detailed plan for dealing with the fly-tipping instead of being reactive. In response to points made in the Stage 1 response:
1. The resident acknowledged that the black bin had been moved.
2. The mopeds/motorbikes were still parked within the communal area.
3. She had not received an update on her request for CCTV and a gate.
4. The local authority had told her that the landlord should deal with fly tipping, and she had been told by a resident of the other housing association block that he had used her block’s recycling facilities as his had none. She asked for details of the contact the landlord made with the local authority and the other housing association.
5. The resident noted she had received a note though her door about her bike, but other neighbours did not receive the same leaflet, therefore she felt that she was singled out.
6. She had been “harassed” about her pushbike yet the metal gates in question had been in place for 20+ years.
7. As of that day, the estate was in a total mess.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It stated:
1. CCTV cameras could not capture everything on the estate. It had requested a member of staff to attend the estate to try to identify ways to reduce/deter fly tipping on the estate. This included sending letters to residents and liaising with neighbouring landlords whose residents may be contributing to this.
2. The black bin had been removed from the bin shelter as the resident had requested.
3. The resident had confirmed that the issue of three mopeds/motorbikes parked outside her block no longer formed part of her complaint.
4. It was unlikely and unrealistic that it would install gates across the entrance to its blocks to prevent people dumping rubbish within the estate. This was due to costs which would be incurred over a significant area of land. It would consider planting shrubbery near the bin area to deter fly-tipping.
5. It managed the issue of waste management / fly-tipping as best it could, acting on reports of customers. Where it had evidence of perpetrators it pursued them, but it did not ascertain the identities often. It would look at making an action plan for the scheme.
6. It agreed that the issue of the resident’s bike being stored in the communal area was separate, but it still related to fire-safety and would be picked up on at inspections. The resident’s feedback about the tone of landlord’s communication about the bike had been passed to the manager.
In summary, the landlord stated that it did not identify any service failure therefore it did not uphold the complaint. However, relevant staff members would work through the issues raised and work with residents and local authority to try to reduce fly tipping across the scheme.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it had twice notified the housing association owning the neighbouring block of their residents leaving waste on its land. However, the information provided to this Service does not contain any responses from the other landlord.
An internal email sent on 3 August 2022 indicates that the landlord queried whether to put plants on the area next to the bins. However, there is no evidence that a decision was made.
On 14 September 2021 and 10 November 2021, the resident referred her complaint to this Service explaining that there had been recurrent fly–tipping over several years onto the patch of land next to the bin area. She stated that residents of the neighbouring housing association block fly-tipped on her estate and used her block’s bins causing them to overflow. The resident stated that she had provided addresses to her landlord.
The resident also noted that whilst she had been advised to report fly–tipping to the local authority, it had told her the fly-tipping was on private land. She had not been contacted by the landlord, as promised, since the Stage 2 response and she was not sure what action the landlord was taking to address the issues she had raised. The resident has also stated that whilst the landlord had posted a leaflet to her about items in communal areas, she was unsure that the landlord had taken action against other residents in respect of items outside their doors, including mopeds, and metal gates over their doors.
On 16 November 2021 the landlord provided information for this investigation. On 24 August 2022 the resident advised this Service that problems with refuse and fly–tipping was continuing at her block and that she had made a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

Reports of refuse and fly tipping

In line with the Estate Management Policy the landlord’s obligation was to maintain communal areas in line with its agreed specification. In this case, the resident did not dispute that the landlord picked up waste from the floor in line with its procedure for the estate. However, she complained about the build-up of rubbish and fly-tipped items, including overflowing bins, and that the landlord was not sufficiently pro-active enough in preventing refuse and dumped items on the estate.
It is understood there is open access to the estate with pedestrians and vehicles being able to pass through, and that this contributes to people inappropriately disposing of rubbish and items on the estate. The resident suggested that the landlord block of the estate by installing gates. The landlord is not obliged to carry out improvements to the estate and, as such, not obliged to install gates. The correspondence indicates that the resident’s request has been registered with the landlord’s Planned Maintenance and Asset Team but ultimately it is the landlord’s responsibility to manage limited repair and maintenance budgets and it has discretion to prioritise its expenditure and works. As the requested works affect many residents, it would also be appropriate that the landlord consult them about the installation of gates, especially as there may be service charge implications for both the installation and future maintenance. The landlord took steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the proposed installation of gates by advising in its Stage 2 response that this would be unlikely and unrealistic.
However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to provide the cost incurred in dealing with fly-tipping so she could compare it against the cost of a new gate. As such, aside from missing an opportunity to show transparency the landlord did not take all the necessary steps to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
There were other areas where the landlord did not sufficiently advise or update the resident on proposed action to mitigate problems of rubbish and dumped items. In response to the resident’s request for the use of CCTV to catch fly-tippers the landlord did not make clear whether it could install additional CCTV or what process and capability there was for monitoring/reviewing footage from existing CCTV cameras. Furthermore, in the Stage 2 response the landlord advised it would visit the estate and formulate an action plan, which may include sending letters to residents and working with neighbouring landlords. As such, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations. However, there is no evidence that the landlord formulated a plan, or if it did so, that the plan was communicated to the resident by November 2021, several months after the complaint responses. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed that it wrote to residents. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the detail of its contact with other landlords, despite the resident asking for this information. These omissions contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord had no action plan, and therefore that it was taking insufficient action to resolve her complaint.
The landlord additionally stated it would plant shrubs on the land near the bin area to deter fly-tipping. However, again there is no evidence that the landlord reached a decision on whether to take this action, or if it did so that the decision was communicated to the resident, by November 2021.
In its responses the landlord suggested to the resident that she report fly-tipping to the local authority. This was in line with its Estate Management Policy. However, the resident has stated that the local authority has referred her back to the landlord as the fly-tipping is on private (the landlord’s) land. The fact that the resident has been referred back to the landlord indicates that there are failings in understanding and co-ordination between the landlord and the local authority in respect of action to tackle fly-tipping. The referral back to the landlord has caused further frustration the resident, compounded by the landlord not responding to her request to provide details of its contact with the local authority.
In summary, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord faces difficulties in controlling the build-up of rubbish and fly-tipped items on the resident’s estate and that it is unlikely that the block will be clear at all times. It is also not obliged to meet the resident’s request to install gates. However, there has been maladministration by the landlord as it did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint including her requests to provide details of the costs of dealing with fly–tipping and information of its contact with third parties. The landlord did not take sufficiently advise or update the resident on proposed action to mitigate problems of rubbish and fly-tipped items. This including the use of CCTV, the formulation and enaction of an action plan and the planting of shrubs. The landlord also referred the resident to the local authority about fly-tipping without evidently understanding what action the local authority would take.

The storage of the resident’s bike

The resident has complained that the landlord has acted unfairly to her by asking her to remove her bike from the communal hallway. The landlord had good reason to contact the resident about her bike, asking her to remove it from the communal hallway, as this was in line with its policy on fire-safety and clear communal areas. The resident perceived that the landlord was being unfair towards her based on her understanding of the landlord’s (lack of) contact with other residents about their items in communal spaces and some residents retaining a metal security gates. However, the landlord’s contact with other residents is not an issue that has a direct, material effect on the resident. Ultimately the landlord followed its policy by contacting the resident about her bike, and therefore there was no service failure by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handing of reports of refuse and fly tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the storage of her bike.

Reasons

The landlord faces difficulties in controlling the build-up of rubbish and fly-tipped items on the resident’s estate and it is unlikely that the block will be clear at all times. It is also not obliged to meet the resident’s request to install gates. However, there has been maladministration by the landlord as it did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint including her requests to provide details of the costs of dealing with fly-tipping and information of its contact with third parties. The landlord did not take sufficiently advise or update the resident on proposed action to mitigate problems of rubbish and fly-tipped items. This including the use of CCTV, the formulation and enaction of an action plan and the planting of shrubs. The landlord also referred the resident to the local authority about fly-tipping without evidently understanding what action the local authority would take.
The landlord had good reason to contact the resident about her bike, asking her to remove it from the communal hallway, as this was in line with its policy on fire-safety and clear communal areas.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings in identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its responses and updates to her.
3. advise the resident of any action it is taking or will be taking to tackle over-flowing rubbish and fly-tipping on the estate. This include making clear whether it has an action plan, what communication it has had with the local authority and neighbouring housing association and what has been agreed, how CCTV is used and whether further cameras will be installed, and whether it will be planting shrubbery to deter fly-tipping.