Peabody Trust (202104313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104313

Peabody Trust

10 December 2021

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 response to the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and its response to her request to remove the bulky waste element of her service charge.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a 4th floor flat under a lease with the landlord purchased under a shared ownership scheme. The resident was responsible for 100% of her share of the service charges, whether she was a part owner or not. The lease began on 2 August 2013. The flat the resident occupied formed part of a block on an estate which was also occupied by tenants of the landlord, referred to as ‘general needs’ tenants. There was a security gate for the full estate and each block has its own gate.
Under the lease, the resident was required to pay the landlord on demand a proportion of the outgoings in relation to the property, which not only included the building the flat was part of, but also the car park and common parts the resident had use of, and any other areas which related to the building, whether or not it was part of the structure. The common parts included the bin and cycle storage areas. The landlord was responsible for keeping the common parts of the building clean. The common parts included the bin store, courtyards and access ways. It was not liable for any failure in interruption of services (such as the cleaning of the common parts) unless such an interruption was due to the landlord’s neglect or default. In summary, the landlord was obliged to provide services including the cleaning of the bin areas and the resident was obliged to pay for those services. The landlord would not be responsible for lack of services unless it was due to being its fault.
It was also a term of the resident’s lease not to cause or permit nuisance to neighbours. It would be usual that all leaseholders will be bound by similar terms.
While the landlord did not have a specific policy in relation to fly-tipping and waste management, all household occupiers are under a legal duty to ensure that household waste is property disposed of under section 34 of the Environmental Act 1990. In the circumstances, the dumping of waste (referred to as fly-tipping) was unlawful.
The Ombudsman does not have a copy of the tenancy agreement of occupants who rented rather than owned, or part owned, their homes. However, a usual term of such an agreement is not to cause a nuisance. Moreover, causing a nuisance to a neighbour, or the landlord, in specified circumstances, may be a discretionary ground for repossession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. Nuisance can, in some circumstances, include fly–tipping in the common parts of an estate. Whether dumping rubbish is nuisance is a matter of the specific facts and circumstances.
The landlord‘s complaints procedure comprised of two stages. It would acknowledge a complaint within three working days with the name of the case manager and provide a response within ten working days. Stage one would be an investigation carried out by a case manager from the relevant service area.
If the resident informed the landlord that they were not satisfied with the outcome, the landlord would try and resolve any outstanding concerns, otherwise the complaint would go to stage two of its formal complaint process. It would again write within three working days to confirm the name of the manager handling the case. It would then carry out a full review of the case and send a response within 15 working days, unless the landlord stated otherwise.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord would pay compensation for failing to meet agreed standards of service, poor complaint handling or failure to provide a service that had been charged for. It may consider practical action to resolve a dispute to remedy an adverse effect that had been caused by the service failure instead of providing financial compensation. It would not pay compensation where the fault was caused by a third party. When assessing compensation, it would consider the severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable.
It set out the following compensation scales for any failure in relation to its own complaints handling:
1. £1 – £25 Failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact
2. £26 – £75 Failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure or correctly investigate a complaint resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress.
3. £76 – £100 Evidence of extensive failure to follow the complaint policy or procedure or to investigate a complaint correctly and cause significant impact on complainant.
Service charges paid for a specific service that the landlord provided could be fully or part refunded if it was evidenced that the landlord was responsible for the service and it was not provided as expected.

Chronology

The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2020 in relation to a complaint she said she had raised on 19 September 2020 regarding fly-tipping, stating she was disappointed with a telephone conversation she had had with the landlord on 23 September 2020. She reported that it had stated that, as she did not know who left the rubbish, there was no action it could take. It could not check the CCTV but it would circulate a ‘block’ letter in order to address the issue. In addition, the neighbourhood manager would check the CCTV at the next visit. The resident wanted the landlord to visit the tenants door–to–door. She disputed either the leaseholders or non-residents were responsible. She was unhappy the landlord was unable to provide a precise schedule for its visits. She requested that the leaseholders receive assurances of a plan of action in relation to the fly-tipping by 2 October 2020.
The resident reported fly-tipping on the premises on 5 October 2020. The landlord responded the same day with the following action plan:
1. The landlord would instruct the onsite caretakers to be more vigilant with regards to reporting the dates and times of any fly-tipping that would enable the landlord to review the CCTV within a specific timeframe.
2. It would consult with residents to determine if the landlord should extend the then current CCTV system to the communal areas in order to assist with identifying those residents responsible for the fly-tipping.
3. It would instruct the caretakers to check the contents of the rubbish bags being thrown out of the window of the general needs block so that it could make a positive identification and take the necessary enforcement action.
4. It would review signage and security lighting in the areas most affected by the fly-tipping to deter further fly-tipping and to alert any culprits to the financial penalties and legal consequences of their actions.
5. It would send a block letter instructing residents how to dispose of rubbish and bulk waste responsibly, with contact details of the local authority waste removal service and would also inform that any resident caught fly-tipping would not only be charged for the removal and disposal cost but would also be in breach of their tenancy agreement and could face legal action. A copy of the block letter would also be placed on the communal notice boards
It explained a recent reorganisation of roles and that onsite caretakers had taken over the auditing of cleaning and grounds maintenance, while the neighbourhood managers focused on removing bulk waste left in communal areas and identifying other fire and risk hazards. It asked the resident to allow for two to three weeks for the action plan to be completed.
A neighbour reported further fly-tipping on 26 December 2020.
On 2 January 2021, the resident made a further report and a formal complaint about the fly-tipping, in the resident’s view, by the non-leaseholder residents on the estate. She wanted the landlord to remove the costs for the removal of bulky items from the service charges. She felt the landlord was to blame for not taking action against the perpetrators and failing to repair the estate gate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 and 7 January 2021. The first email made references to “previous cases” and its records of the same day made references to photos the resident had provided. The second email provided the name of the landlord’s neighbourhood manager who would be managing the complaint and gave a response date of 20 January 2021.
The landlord responded with its first stage response on 19 January 2021 as follows:-
1. A block letter was sent to all residents advising them how to dispose of rubbish and bulk waste responsively.
2. Both resident and caretakers were requested to report the dates and time of any fly-tipping so that it could review the CCTV within a specific timeframe. As yet, no specific dates and times had been provided for further investigation.
3. The caretakers were instructed to check the contents of any rubbish bags to make a positive identification. However, no evidence had been confirmed as yet.
4. It agreed that, despite the above, the issue was not resolved and it needed to take further action:
  1. It would send another “block letter”.
  2. It would arrange an estate inspection to review signage and current CCTV coverage.
  3. It would progress with a residents consultation in relation to extending the CCTV.
  4. Until it could positively identify the perpetrators and take enforcement action against them, the cost of fly-tipping would continue to be re-charged back to all residents, whether they were leaseholders or “general needs” residents.
  5. It apologised for any distress this situation had caused.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage two as follows:
1. She objected to having to report the time and dates of the fly-tipping.
2. She wanted timeframes for the actions proposed by the landlord.
3. The costs for the bulk refuse had increased nearly fourfold.
4. She felt it was for the landlord to identify the perpetrators. She felt the matter had gone on for years and leaseholders had made numerous complaints “over the past years”.
While the Ombudsman does not have any dated letter, the example block letter provided stated that the amount of fly-tipping on the estate was excessive and had resulted in a significant annual increase in the service charge. The landlord did not think that it was fair that all residents should have to pay for fly-tipping to be removed where it was only a few residents who were responsible. It had asked residents to contact it and provide specific “intelligence” regarding the illegal dumping in the communal area and by the bin store. “Actions included” reviewing CCTV and photographs taken and going through rubbish bags. If the landlord was able to make a positive identification, perpetrators would be recharged the cost of the removal and disposal. Fly–tipping was a breach of the tenancy agreement and the perpetrators’ tenancy would be at risk. Moreover, fly-tipping was a criminal offence.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that as the security gate leading to the estate remained unsecured, all fly-tipping charges for the period 2020/2021 would be removed from the service charges. It arranged for personnel to be extra vigilant and report any incidence of fly-tipping. It explained that the property manager was not on site every day and requested that the residents directly report any incidences of fly-tipping and “share any intelligence” regarding specific perpetrators on the estate.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord escalated the complaint, stating its reasons were that the resident remained unhappy. It stated that it would not reimburse residents for bulk waste removal charge in relation to 2019/2020 charges. However, it had accepted responsibility for its failure of service in relation to 2020/2021.
On 7 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord with her outstanding points in response to its email of 26 January 2021 as follows:
1. She did not receive the name of the “dedicated case manager” within three working days of her complaint.
2. She was satisfied with the landlord’s explanation why the first stage response was provided by an area manager rather than a customer relations manager, which was not in accordance with the landlord’s own policy.
3. The landlord should have carried out the second stage review within 15 working days of her email dated 19 February 2021 and she was unhappy with the delay.
4. She noted that the landlord would review the CCTV footage even when there was no police reference number provided.
5. She noted that contractors cleaned the estate and the property manager regularly inspected the estate, including the cleaning and grounds maintenance.
6. The landlord had explained that it carried out both quarterly estate inspections, focusing on health and safety issues, and more regular inspections. She queried the exact nature and person responsible for each role.
A neighbour of the resident made a further report of fly-tipping on 12 February 2021.
According to the landlord’s records, the landlord sent a warning to a specific resident regarding fly-tipping on 17 February 2021. It also investigated the increase of the rubbish removal element of the service charge in 2019/20 and considered and investigated its own processes.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It apologised that it appeared that it had not investigated the resident’s photographs and it would arrange to do so.
2. It explained its complaint procedure and the relevant roles within the landlord’s organisation. Property managers were not on site every day and this had been impacted by the pandemic restrictions.
3. Although, normally, CCTV was only reviewed at the request of the police, it would review it but would need dates or times in order to do so. Other reports were followed up and enforcement action was taken.
4. The charges for the year 2019/20 would not be refunded.
5. It stated that the security gate was recently repaired.
6. It concluded that
  1. The acknowledgement email at stage one did not state the name of the complaint case handler for the resident’s complaint.
  2. The pictures the resident had provided were not followed up.
  3. There were protracted delays to repairing the security gate which may have contributed to the ongoing fly-tipping problems.
  4. Service charges relating to bulk waste disposal for the year 2020/2021 would be refunded.
  5. It was unable to refund the same for 2019/2020.
  6. A recent estate inspection has not been undertaken due to working restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  7. It was working to resolve the fly-tipping by sending out block letters, putting up signage and recharging removal costs to any offenders.
  8. It would encourage residents to continue reporting details of fly–tipping.
7. It apologised for its service failures.
8. It offered £50 in relation to its complaint handling failure in that the complaint was not fully investigated at stage one of its procedure.
Another resident made a further report on 19 February 2021 with a photo and approximate dates.
The resident replied on 25 February 2021 and stated that she felt there was no system to the visits and that fly-tipping occurred even when the gates were secured.
The landlord replied on the same day, stating that the CCTV policy was still under review, especially in relation to the effectiveness of reviewing CCTV when investigating fly-tipping cases. It was difficult to make a positive identification and the cameras did not currently cover a wide enough area to confirm which flat the perpetrator came from. In the circumstances, the landlord had concluded that reviewing CCTV was not an effective means of investigating fly-tipping cases as the landlord would be unable to take any enforcement action.
The resident responded on 25 February 2021 to state the landlord had declined to provide exact schedules and she felt that indicated a lack of proper organisation. Her view was that the tenant-residents were responsible, given reports by other residents and that the fly-tipping continued even once the gate was fixed. The resident and others had been reporting fly-tipping for the last seven years. She felt it was unfair and impractical to ask residents to take time “spying” on their neighbours. She did not feel the landlord enforced sanctions in any event, in accordance with the landlord’s handbook.
According to the landlord’s records on 5 and 10 March 2021, its estate inspections were under review, it had issued formal warnings and it encouraged residents to report “intelligence”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2021 and stated as follows:
1. Neighbourhood managers carried out estate inspections on a quarterly basis, however property managers undertook monthly inspections.
2. Frequency of inspections had been impacted by the restrictions imposed during lockdown. However, it regarded fly-tipping as a serious matter and should respond effectively. It acknowledged the scale of the problem.
3. It encouraged all residents to report any fly-tipping. It explained that in order to take enforcement action, the landlord required effective information, such as the pictures the resident had provided. It reviewed the resident’s photographs but had to take “correct action” by which the Ombudsman understands to means following correct procedures when taking action. It felt this meant that it may have appeared it was not taking action when that it actually was.
4. A further warning letter would be sent to all residents.
5. It explained it was impractical to have a schedule for inspection as some may be ad-hoc. All estate inspections were under review at the time.
6. It would review CCTV when it was provided with specific times and dates. On receiving such details, it had taken enforcement action recently.
Residents made further reports on 23 May 2021 and 6 June 2021.
The landlord’s records show that, as at 9 July 2021, it was reviewing its CCTV policy especially in relation to the effectiveness of reviewing CCTV when investigating fly-tipping cases. Cameras did not cover a wide enough area to confirm which flat the perpetrator came from, which rendered it ineffective. It was obtaining a quote to upgrade the existing system to an additional wide–angle camera and also to convert the system to a remote log which would enable it to review footage in real time from its offices. If it could evidence fly-tipping coming from a specific block, it could recharge any related fly-tipping costs to that specific block, rather than recharging back to all residents.
The landlord has informed this service that it reviewed CCTV if and when it received reports with dates and times. It was virtually impossible to identify or trace an individual back to a specific property. It had found that CCTV was of limited use in fly-tipping cases and it needed to manage residents’ expectations. The only actions it could take was to send out strongly-worded block letters, install signage and recharge residents ongoing removal costs as a deterrent.

Assessment and findings

A note on the evidence. There was some indication that some communications may have been missing. For example, the resident referred to a complaint of 19 September 2020 that the landlord did not have a record of. The Ombudsman this was not fundamentally material to the outcome of this investigation.
The landlord has explained that this may have been due to residents making reports within email trails with other residents. The evidence showed that the resident regarded herself as part of a group of residents or leaseholders and that other leaseholders had made complaints. The landlord has reasonably accepted that it should nevertheless seek to ensure that all communications are assigned to the correct resident record. It is appreciated that requires administrative time and it may not always be clear who is making the report or complaint. However, the landlord should ensure it keeps good, clear records and retains an audit trail of its actions.
It should bear in mind its duties under data protection that if one resident made a subject access request, it would have to remove third party information and would be under a duty to disclose all of the resident’s own records. It is additionally important that a resident’s communications are not solely retained under another’s file so as to be sure it could retrieve a complete trail of communication.
According to the resident, the fly-tipping had been on-going for seven years. However, according to the landlord, it did not receive reports from the resident directly prior to 23 September 2020. However, while, in the circumstances, the scope of this report will consider the period from September 2020, it is reasonable to conclude from the entirety of the evidence that the issue had been on–going for some time, but that it had got worse in 2020/2021.
There was no dispute that the landlord was responsible for keeping the common parts of the estate clear and clean and the resident was liable for those costs on a pro–rata basis. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord accepted responsibility. The landlord’s response by way of its action plan was reasonable. It offered vigilance, it increased warnings and considered increased CCTV. The steps the landlord proposed were reasonable steps to seek to reduce fly-tipping. While the example block letter provided to this service was not dated, it was reasonable to conclude that it was sent on a number of occasions including a letter within a reasonable time after 5 October 2020 following a report from the resident. The example block letter was strongly worded and made clear the consequences for anyone being found to be fly-tipping. The landlord was entitled to consider how much of its resources it could devote to the issue and how it would arrange its visits. Its decision not to publish its exact inspection timetable with the resident and her neighbours was reasonable. Indeed, it was reasonable for the landlord not to pre-announce its visits in order to be better placed to identify perpetrators. The landlord’s explanation that estate inspections were impacted by the pandemic was reasonable: there were several lockdowns and there were, and remain, restrictions on working practices during the pandemic. As at March 2021, it was reviewing its inspections. However, frequent the inspections were, they would not necessarily reduce the necessity for bulk removal.
The landlord’s explanation was reasonable that unless it could identify the perpetrators, it could not take enforcement action. It would have to know the identify of the perpetrator in order to take action. While it may seem onerous to some residents, it was also not unreasonable to rely on residents reporting fly-tipping incidents with as much precise detail as regards time and dates as possible. There was no evidence that the landlord was asking the residents to identify the perpetrators but rather to make specific reports. However, the resident made a good point that she did not wish to “spy” on her neighbours. The landlord should take care not to encourage residents to vigilantism, or even harassment of other neighbours, as well as putting themselves at risk. The use of the word “intelligence” in its block letter was not appropriate as it is a term used in the context of a police investigation. The landlord should be clear about what it expected from the resident. It would not be reasonable for example to expect a resident to look through rubbish, and while it is a reasonable conclusion that this was not the landlord’s intention, the landlord should be clear in that regard.
The resident took the view that the fly-tipping was caused by the landlord’s tenants on the estate rather than the leaseholders. While there was some indication that the perpetrators included those living on the estate, given the reports continued even after the main gate was repaired, there was no clear evidence which residents were responsible. It was reasonable to therefore spread the cost of the waste removal across both leaseholders and tenants.
It was a reasonable of the landlord to take responsibility for the lack of security to the gate and remove the bulk waste removal costs from the 2020/2021 charges. The landlord had taken a generous broad-brush approach in removing them in relation to 2020/2021. It did so, even though it arranged for a temporary repair by way of a padlock and the gate was repaired on a date in February 2021. Moreover, it was not clear whether it was the lack of security to the gate facilitated the fly-tipping. The resident took the view that the fly-tipping continued even once the gate was repaired.
While the landlord’s explanation for not removing the same charge for the previous years was not clear, there was no evidence that the issue of the gate security had not arisen in the same way the year before. It was in the circumstances reasonable for the landlord not to remove the charges for the previous year as well, in particular as it removed the charges for the entire service charge year, not only for the period the gate was unsecured.
It was not disputed that any residents fly-tipping would not only be in breach of their tenancy or lease agreements but would also be committing a criminal offence. It was reasonable that the landlord considered its own enforcement action through the county court and making reports to the local authority. That said, not only was there a process to any enforcement action, a court would have to consider whether it was reasonable to make a possession order. Equally, a court would have to be persuaded it was proportionate to grant an injunction in such circumstances. Court action is not a step a social landlord can take lightly and it was entitled to consider its appropriateness in all of the circumstances. Moreover, a court would require evidence. The difficulty the landlord had was identifying the perpetrators, even with the use of CCTV.
When the landlord did receive a specific report, it followed up and pursued the perpetrator. While there was no evidence of the outcome to the Ombudsman, the landlord would be limited in what information it could share with the resident in relation to enforcement action.
The landlord considered the use of CCTV to identify the perpetrator. Its explanation why CCTV was not effective unless it covered a wide enough area was reasonable. It was open to the landlord to review the decision if and when CCTV covered a greater area which was, at the time, a subject of a consultation with the residents.
It is difficult to see what other steps the landlord could take in relation to preventing fly-tipping, apart from inspections, viewing CCTV, letters and taking enforcement action when it had the identity of the perpetrator and if appropriate. To review all CCTV footage could be an unreasonable drain on resources which costs would be passed onto the leaseholders. The landlord required times and dates to do so. Despite having said CCTV was ineffective, the landlord would nevertheless review footage when there were times and dates. It was also reviewing its CCTV policy. It is not clear whether a leaseholder consultation in relation to extending CCTV took place or what the outcome was of the review was, if any to date.
There was no conclusive evidence that the landlord was at fault for the fly-tipping, except it took responsibility for the main estate gate not being secure and had, in the circumstances, removed all the charges in relation to 2020/2021. The removal of the 2020/2021 charges, was, in the Ombudsman’s view, an adequate step to address the impact of the fly-tipping on the resident and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident’s concerns and frustration at not only unsightly waste on the estate, but having to pay charges for removal of rubbish that she had not left are understandable. The Ombudsman notes that she has spent time and trouble raising and pursuing these concerns. It was not disputed that the landlord had an obligation to address the fly-tipping. However, overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response and the actions it took were reasonable and proportionate to the issues being raised. Its actions included sending warning letters, increasing vigilance and seeking enforcement when it was able to so. In addition, it removed the bulky waste charges from its 2020/21 charges in recognition of the time taken to repair the security gate. The removal of the costs for the entire year went beyond what it could reasonably have been expected to do (as it could have limited the charges for the period when the gate was in repair and there was no clear evidence that the insecurity of the gate was the cause of the fly-tipping). In all of the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in response to the resident’s complaint about fly–tipping and her request that it waive charges.

The complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its timescale and its complaint process. It provided a contact name of a manager in its second email of 7 February 2021.
The second complaint response was provided 29 workings days (4 weeks and a day) as opposed to three weeks after the resident requested her complaint be escalated. While the response was slightly delayed, the landlord had provided an interim response on 26 January 2021. Moreover, the policy provided that the landlord seek to resolve the complaint informally and extend the deadline. The delay was due to its seeking to address the resident’s further concerns informally. While generally, the Ombudsman would not deem delaying a complaints process by providing an informal response good practice, this did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, create an undue or significant delay.
The landlord addressed all of the resident’s queries and clarified the roles of its personnel in detail. It utilised the complaints process to review its actions, to consider what steps it could take and to provide clear explanations of its processes and roles.
The landlord exercised its reasonable discretion by responding to the resident’s further points once the complaints process had been concluded.
The landlord’s second stage response acknowledged that it did not act on the photographs provided by the resident, for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation. There was no evidence of a significant impact caused by this failure. The compensation was in accordance with its own policy and along the lines of the amount the Ombudsman Service itself would have awarded.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b), there was reasonable redress in relation to:
1. the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and its response to her request to remove the bulky waste element of her service charge.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The extent of the fly-tipping was clearly causing an issue for the resident, it was unsightly and also costly. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the response by the landlord and whether it complied with its policy and procedures and any legal obligations. With the exception of it not investigating the resident’s photographs of January 2021, it responded promptly to the resident’s reports. The landlord examined CCTV footage when it had specific information regarding days and times. It took action against a perpetrator and would charge the relevant perpetrator or specific block when it had sufficient relevant information. It sent out block letters to all the occupiers of the estate and warning letters to individuals. It kept its programme of inspections under review. It considered the extent of its CCTV. In any event, it did not pass on the charges of the waste removal in the 2020/2021 service charges. Since there was no clear evidence the landlord was obliged to waive the entirety of these charges, but this was a way of compensating for any failures, its offer to do so constituted reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation. It provided detailed responses to the resident’s queries. It used the complaints procedure to review its own actions. It responded in accordance with its own policy and procedure and continued to address the resident’s concerns.

Recommendations

The landlord should actively consider expanding its CCTV and consider ’dummy’ CCTV cameras which may act as a deterrent, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should update the resident, if it has not already done so, on the result of the resident consultation and review in relation to expanding its CCTV programme.
The landlord should make clear to the resident, if it has not already done so, the limitations of CCTV and what it can achieve in relation to fly-tipping.
The landlord should take care in being precise about its expectations of residents in relation to reporting incidents of fly-tipping.
The landlord should amend its anti-social behaviour policy in order to address fly-tipping in its policy.
The landlord should ensure it keeps clear and organised records and ensures it stores all communications from its individual resident, whether part of an email trail or not, in separate files, whether electronic or otherwise, in order to retain a clear, complete audit trail of all its actions and the resident’s communications