Aster Group Limited (202116121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116121

Aster Group Limited

30 November 2023

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 resident has complained about:
1. the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with estate waste management, including its handling of littering and fly tipping.
2. the landlord’s handling of her reports of washed laundry on balconies and walkways.
3. the landlord’s handling of her request that all lease and tenancy agreements have consistent terms.
4. the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its internal complaints process.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The resident purchased her property in August 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the third floor.
The resident’s lease states that she as the lessee:
1. shall not “expose washing clothes …or hand beat or shake washing clothes … on or from the windows landing balconies stairs or roof.
2. shall keep all passages and staircases in the property clear of obstruction of any kind.
The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states that it should initially assess a complaint within 2 working days and decide if it can be fast-tracked – resolved quickly as part of “normal ‘day to day’ business”. If clarity is required as to the outcomes being sought, or if the basis of the complaint is not clear, the Complaints team will make contact with the customer. A written Stage 1 response should be sent within 10 working days from logging and allocation. A written Stage 2 response should be sent within 20 working days from the date of escalation.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy states: “Issues like pet nuisance, fly-tipping, or an untidy garden, which are what we would define environmental ASB, would be dealt with by the Neighbourhoods team rather than the ASB team.”
The landlord’s Environmental ASB Procedure states that “Communal Area Nuisance” includes a “Failure to comply with zero tolerance – littering, fly tipping, storage”. The procedure states “When managing environmental ASB we will treat each case individually. This means not all cases will involve the same action, but for each case we will respond reasonably and proportionately to the problems identified”. The procedure provides a resolution toolkit which includes “Quick informal interventions – neighbourhood postcards, stickers, informal words, encouraging neighbours to talk to each other (“nip it in the bud” measures)” and “Use workflow letters and processes where appropriate – revise to fit individual case and make them sequential where necessary”.
The Neighbourhood Inspection Procedure states estate of streets with no communal areas are “low risk” and as such should be inspected 6 monthly or annually. However, the frequency should be reviewed at each inspection and from prior knowledge of the neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Officer should accompany the Fire Risk Officer and carry out a neighbourhood inspection in conjunction with the fire risk assessment.
The resident has been represented by her father (the representative) when dealing with this Service and the landlord at times. He has sent a high volume of emails to the landlord about numerous issues that have been copied to many members of staff as well as the Service and many other third parties. The landlord has noted, in addition, that the content of the emails often contained extracts of text that have been copied and pasted from other correspondence but it has not always been clear when the correspondence was originally sent and to whom. As such emails threads received are not necessarily chronological or contextualised fully. Furthermore, it has noted that attachments referred to in the text have not been sent which further makes the correspondence less straightforward to follow. For these reasons the landlord has not received emails directly from the representative as his email address has been blocked although the landlord corresponds directly with the resident.

Summary of Events

Estate waste management

On 20 April 2021 the landlord responded to a Stage 1 complaint about litter, overflowing bins and parking. In emails sent between 1 and 6 May 2021 the representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint about overflowing bins and litter to Stage 2 as refuse bins were overloaded on a weekly basis and residents were refusing to recycle. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it did not receive the emails and it is not evident that the landlord responded to the escalation request.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord advised the resident it had received information from the Service noting that she had not received a Stage 2 response to a complaint about overflowing refuse bins. The landlord subsequently asked the resident to provide further details of this complaint. It noted that it may raise a new complaint as only the parking complaint was escalated to Stage 2 and that complaint had completed the complaint procedure. On 25 March 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had considered an email she had sent containing a thread of her representative’s emails. It noted the resident “would like to know whether each individual building should be allocated their own individual refuse area”.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord sent a formal complaint acknowledgment noting that litter issues had continued to affect the resident since the last complaint of May 2021. It had raised a new complaint and would respond by 15 April 2022. After the landlord asked the resident if it could discuss her complaint with her, on 13 April 2022 the resident insisted she wanted her father to represent her. The landlord advised that it would not lift the restriction on him but could speak to them both together.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that it met the resident on 16 May 2022.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response. It noted that as resolution to her complaint the resident wanted bigger or more bins to be installed. It responded:
1. The council had confirmed it was not an option for everyone to have their own bins. The council had also declined to unlock the recycling bins, which left a small space to push the rubbish through.
2. Non-residents as well as tenants and leaseholders were responsible for problems of rubbish and fly-tipping. It removed bulky waste left around the estate every time it was notified or from weekly inspections.
3. Its Estate Team visited very Friday, before collection day to litter pick, remove the bulky fly tipping and ensure the bins would be accepted for collection. It also carried out ad hoc litter picks.
4. It had hosted a waste education day with the council where it advised residents how to best manage their waste and provided stickers with guidance. It re-stickered every bin on the estate and installed additional signage in the new bin stores.
In emails sent between 14 and 16 June 2022 the representative escalated the complaint stating that the issue with overflowing bins and littering had got worse and attaching photos taken that week. The landlord advised the resident that the litter would be cleared on Friday at the weekly litter pick and the council determined the number of bins. It asked her if she wanted to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. The resident confirmed she did on 20 April 2022, also reporting a dumped mattress.
On 21 June 2022 the representative sent several emails about several issues following which the landlord reviewed all outstanding matters which included allocating the estate waste management complaint to a member of staff for investigation. The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 30 June 2022 indicates that the staff member had emailed the resident twice asking for a phone call to discuss her complaint but had not received a complaint.
On 5 July 2022 the landlord sent a formal Stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident advising that it would be responding by 18 July 2022.

Washed laundry

On 25 January 2022, the Service wrote to the landlord stating that the resident had complained about how it had handled her reports of tenants exposing their washing on their balconies which the resident believed was against their tenancy agreements. We noted that the resident had said she had complained to the landlord but had not received a response.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and on 8 February 2022 sent a written acknowledgement to her complaint about its handling of her reports of tenants’ washing being dried on balconies. It noted that the resident felt this was against their tenancy agreements and an eyesore, and wanted it to enforce the removal of laundry from balconies. It advised that it would respond by 22 February 2022.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord carried out an estate inspection and a fire risk safety assessment. It noted that the “Escape Route” was clear of obstructions. It decided that the current frequency agreed in the risk assessment was appropriate for the block/estate. After the inspection the landlord raised an order for its Estate Services Team to litter pick and clear fly tipping around block.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord wrote to residents asking them not to hang their washing along the shared communal walkway as the walkway was a fire escape route. It advised that residents could use the drying lines provided.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the resident. It advised that:
1. leases contained a clause stating that “the lessee shall not… expose washing, clothes … on or in the window, landing, balconies…” The tenancy agreements it had reviewed contained a clause which stated, “you must not keep any household rubbish or unwanted belongings on your balcony” and “you must keep all shared areas such as entrances, stairways, corridors, landings, and lifts … free from obstruction”. Therefore, laundry was prohibited from being hung on communal balconies.
2. it carried out estate inspections at the resident’s block on a quarterly basis.
3. neither estate inspection reports nor information provided by fire risk officers made reference to laundry on balconies.
4. on 23 December 2021 it had written to residents in response to a letter from the Fire and Rescue Service dated 21 December 2021 conveying the resident’s concerns about laundry on balconies. It had since visited and noted further washing hung out on therefore it would be writing further to residents to request that no items were left on the communal walkways/balconies in line with their obligations under their lease or tenancy agreement.
5. in conclusion, there was no service failure and that it would continue to monitor the situation as part of its estate inspections.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord carried out an estate inspection and a fire risk safety assessment. It noted that the “Escape Route” was clear of obstructions. It decided that the current frequency agreed in the risk assessment was appropriate for the block/estate.
On 15 June 2022, the resident escalated the complaint stating laundry on balconies and windows were a breach of the lease and that there should not be a “mismatch” with the tenancy agreement, therefore either leasehold agreements or tenancy agreements should be varied. The resident forwarded emails from her representative which had not been received previously by the landlord. In acknowledging the complaint escalation, the landlord stated it understood from the representative’s emails that the resident:
1. “would like the wording updated on the lease and tenancy agreements to reflect: ‘NOT TO EXPOSE WASHING CLOTHES ON BALCONIES AND IN WINDOWS’”264
2. “would like another letter sent out warning residents not to hang out their washing on the balconies”
3. “would like us to physically remove any washing lines from communal balconies”

Stage 2 response

On 8 July 2022 the landlord sent Stage 2 response which addressed both complaints. It stated:
1. it was not able to change the behaviours of residents, but it had worked with the council to provide education about the use of the bin areas and how recycling can make a difference. This had been in the format of written communication and door knocking to advise residents on how to best manage their waste and recycling.
2. its estate team attended to litter pick the estate and remove any bulky items which had been left in the bin stores every Friday. This was to ensure that when the refuse crews attended from the council, the bins were presented in such a way that they were collected.
3. it was satisfied that the estate was inspected formally in line with its process of once per quarter. The Neighbourhood Officer did advise though, that they were usually on the estate at least once per week.
4. where fly tipping occurred and it could be evidenced that the issue had been caused by a specific resident, then this person was contacted and the fly tipping addressed either via a tenancy warning or a charge for the removal of the waste. If the person responsible could not be identified, then the waste was removed and disposed of. It was satisfied that it had acted in line with its processes and had removed fly tipping where it had been noted or reported.
5. it would not vary the terms of the tenancy agreement to fall in line with the leases as the balcony fell within the curtilage of the property which tenants rented. Condensation could form in a property if washing was dried inside which could then damage the property. Therefore, it would encourage washing to be dried outside where possible so long as it did not cause a risk to others, such as on individual balconies.
6. it had investigated varying the leases of the leaseholders on the estate so that the terms allow washing to be dried on their demised balconies or remain silent on the subject as the tenancy agreements do. This would not help to resolve the resident’s complaint though and it did not believe it to be proportionate to do so. To vary the leases would require agreement from a large majority of the leaseholders and could be a costly exercise which it would not be willing to fund as this was not an issue which had been reported by a large amount of people.
On 8 July 2022, the representative advised the Service that he was unhappy with the Stage 2 response as the lease stated that washing clothes on the balconies is allowed as long as the washing clothes were not “exposed” i.e., discreet. However, clothes in the balconies and windows were exposed and not discreet. The resident has also advised this Service that she believes the landlord should attend more frequently to clear litter.
On 11 August 2022 the landlord carried out another estate inspection and a fire risk safety assessment. It noted that the “Escape Route” was clear of obstructions. It decided that the current frequency agreed in the risk assessment was appropriate the block/estate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with estate waste management, including the handling of fly tipping and littering

The resident’s complaint focused on her concerns about litter in communal areas on her estate. The landlord’s Environmental ASB Procedure confirms that the landlord has a responsibility to take action to address issues of littering and fly-tipping.
It is not disputed that the landlord attends every Friday to litter pick and remove bulky dumped items. The landlord therefore takes reasonable and regular action to ensure that instances of littering and fly-ripping are resolved. While the resident may wish for there to be more regular litter picking, the landlord is not obliged to provide a higher level of service as resolution to her complaint. It is reasonable for a decision on more frequent litter picking to be made after the landlord has consulted with all residents so they can consider whether this would be proportionate and whether they wish to pay any related increase in the service charge.
The resident attributed littering partly on insufficient bin capacity on the estate. The landlord, according to its complaint responses, ascertained whether larger or more bins could be provided by liaising with the local authority. The landlord also queried whether the recycling bins could be made easier to use by being unlocked. The landlord therefore made appropriate investigations into whether bin capacity could be installed; however, ultimately the decision lay with the council and was therefore outside the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s responses also confirm that it has taken preventative steps to resolve the issue of inappropriate waste management insofar it had sought to speak to each resident on an individual basis, with the council. It also provided further guidance through written information such as stickers and additional signage. These interventions are in line with interventions listed in the Environmental ASB Procedure.
In summary, the landlord has taken reasonable and regular action to ensure that instances of littering and fly-ripping are resolved by attending on a weekly basis. It has made appropriate investigations as to whether the bin capacity could be increased to reduce littering. It has also taken steps to prevent inappropriate waste management that are in line with interventions listed in its Environmental ASB Procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of washed laundry on balconies and walkways

The resident complained about other residents hanging out their washed laundry on balconies, thus exposing the laundry to her. The landlord’s complaint responses focused on fire safety. It confirmed that residents should keep communal areas free from obstruction which includes the hanging of washed laundry. The landlord’s response was appropriate as the landlord has an obligation to maintain the fire safety of its properties and items in communal areas present a fire evacuation risk.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps in line with its Neighbourhood Inspection Procedure to ascertain whether further action should be taken to address hanged laundry by carrying out quarterly joint estate and fire risk inspections. The frequency of inspections exceed that suggested by the procedure and the landlord has followed the procedure further by risk assessing whether the frequency of inspections should change.
While the landlord did not identify laundry obstructing escape routes at its quarterly inspections it responded to particular reports received from the resident. In particular, it visited and wrote to residents after being contacted by the Fire and Rescue Service in December 2021. It also wrote to residents on 15 February 2022. As there were communal drying lines on the estate, it was appropriate that the landlord directed residents to use them.
The resident complained that the landlord should not allow any laundry to be exposed on balconies or from windows on the basis she found them to be an eyesore. The landlord advised it would allow washing to dried outside as long as there was no risk to others. It provided good reason for taking this position by referring to the problem of condensation. Condensation and mould can physically harm health and landlords have obligations to ensure that its properties are in good condition and free from hazards. As such it is reasonable that the landlord encourages the drying of laundry outside, when no risk is presented, as this will help prevent moisture building up in the property.
In summary, the landlord has taken appropriate steps in line with its Neighbourhood Inspection Procedure to ascertain whether further action should be taken to address hanged laundry by carrying out quarterly joint estate and fire risk inspections. It responded to particular reports received from the resident at other times. It provided good reason for encouraging the drying of laundry outside, when no risk is presented, by referring to the need to manage condensation and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests that all lease and tenancy agreements have consistent terms

As highlighted in the Stage 1 response, the resident’s lease differs from the tenancy agreements of tenants. The lease is prescriptive about prohibiting washing to be hung and exposed from windows and balconies whereas tenancy agreements only referred to shared areas. Whilst the resident’s wish for the agreements to match is understandable, ultimately, she accepted the terms of lease as they were when she accepted her property. The landlord is not obliged to vary the lease or the tenancy agreement so they match.
In responding to the resident’s request, the landlord explained why it would not vary the terms of the tenancy agreement – as it did not object to residents drying clothes on their own balcony. The landlord also considered whether to vary leasehold agreements so that they did not prohibit laundry drying on individual balconies. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation why it would not do so by noting this would not address fundamental wish that no-one hung their washing outside their properties. Moreover, landlords have a responsibility to manage resources and remain financially viable. In this case it was reasonable that the landlord considered that a project to vary the lease would not be a proportionate use of its resources given that relatively few other residents had raised the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint through its internal complaints process.

The landlord received notification from this Service on 14 March 2022 that the resident wished to pursue her complaint about overflowing refuse bins and littering. It was reasonable that the landlord then sought to establish the outstanding issues at that time given the period that had elapsed since the Stage 1 response of April 2021. Moreover, the landlord followed its complaints procedure by seeking clarity of the outcome sought. However, having acknowledged the complaint the landlord delayed in sending the response, not meeting the timeframe of 10 working days. While some of the delay was due to the landlord’s wish to meet with the resident, it still took over 10 working days thereafter for it to respond.
The landlord also delayed in dealing with the resident’s complaint about overflowing refuse bins and littering at Stage 2. It received confirmation that the resident wished to escalate the complaint on 20 April 2022 but did not escalate the complaint until 21 June 2022, 2 months later.
With regards to the resident’s complaint about washed laundry, the landlord initially delayed in registering it. It did not send the resident a complaint acknowledgement until 2 weeks after receiving notification of the complaint on 25 January 2022. The Stage 1 response of 16 February 2022 was sent within 10 working days of the acknowledgment as per the procedure.
It was not until June 2022 that the landlord escalated the complaint to Stage 2. However, it did not receive the resident’s complaint escalation until 15 June 2022, therefore there is no evidence of delay here.
The landlord response of 8 July 2022 contained the Stage 2 response to both complaints. The response was sent within the timeframe of 20 working days from the date of escalation, set out in the Complaints Procedure, for both complaints. The landlord did not advise the resident prior that there would be a combined response; however, this omission did not cause any material detriment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of issues with estate waste management, including its handling of littering and fly tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of washed laundry on balconies and walkways.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests that all lease and tenancy agreements have consistent terms.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint through its internal complaints process.

Reasons

The landlord has taken reasonable and regular action to ensure that issues of littering and fly-ripping are resolved by attending on a weekly basis. It has made appropriate investigation as to whether the bin capacity could be increased to reduce littering. It has also taken preventative steps to prevent inappropriate waste management that are in line with interventions listed in its procedure.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps in line with its Neighbourhood Inspection Procedure to ascertain whether further action should be taken to address hanged laundry by carrying out quarterly joint estate and fire risk inspections. It responded to particular reports received from the resident at other times. It provided good reason for encouraging the drying of laundry outside, where no risk is presented, by referring to the problem of condensation.
The landlord is not obliged to vary the lease or the tenancy agreement so they match. In responding to the resident’s request the landlord explained why it would neither vary the terms of the tenancy agreement nor the lease.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint about overflowing refuse bins and littering at both stages. It also delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint about hanged washed laundry.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the delays in its complaint handling.
2. pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint handling.