Hyde Housing Association Limited (202008180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008180

Hyde Housing Association Limited

15 February 2024

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:
1. Response to reports of fly tipping.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a two-bedroom ground floor maisonette. The resident has lived at the property since 22 December 2008.

Summary of events

The resident has advised she first contacted the landlord in October 2018 about a member of staff fly tipping onto land that did not belong to it. The resident advised no action was taken.
On 4 January 2020, the resident reported fly tipping via the landlord’s online service where she also reported some repair issues. She stated the estate caretaker picked up leaves and branches from surrounding trees and threw them over the fence on to neighbouring land. The land did not belong to the landlord, and she said that this constituted fly tipping which was an illegal act. The resident asked for a reference number, for the fly tipping to be cleared, and for a call back to discuss progress on this issue.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on this issue on 7 February 2020. The issue was reported again, and she received a new case reference.
On 2 March 2020, the resident sent a further email chase to the landlord.
The landlord phoned the resident on 3 March 2020. It told her it had a legal obligation to return the branches to the landowner.
On 1 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising the waste had not been removed. The resident informed the landlord of her research on the Royal Horticultural Society website. This stated that cut branches should be offered to the tree owner, and if they did not want them, the person who cuts them down is responsible for the disposal. As there was no known registered owner of the land, the resident asked the landlord to remove the waste.
The resident sent a further email chase to the landlord on 6 April 2020. She confirmed she had reported this on 4 January 2020, and chased it on 7 February and 2 March 2020. She stated the landlord responded on 3 March 2020 with incorrect legal information. The resident asked for this issue to be escalated to a formal complaint as it remained outstanding.
On 8 April 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed it had raised a service recovery, the initial stage of a complaint. It asked the resident to allow 2 working days for further investigation before contact was made. It provided a reference number and told her to contact it again if she had not received any contact within 2 working days. It informed the resident there could be a delay as staff were working from home due to the global pandemic and access to some facilities was limited.
The resident has stated she attended estate inspections on 22 May 2020 and 12 June 2020. The resident said she raised the fly tipping with the staff present.
On 17 June 2020, the resident called the landlord for an update on the complaint she raised on 8 April 2020. The resident said the landlord told her there was no trace of a formal complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 June 2020. She confirmed she had raised the issue of fly tipping and had been told it was recorded as a service recovery. No further action or update had been received. The resident asked when the waste would be removed.
On 26 June 2020, the resident replied to an email she had received from the landlord on 23 June 2020. The landlord had confirmed it had spoken to the caretaker. He had agreed the trees were located on neighbouring land and therefore believed it was right to return them to the land. The resident stated she had informed the landlord on 2 previous occasions that it was legally responsible for disposing of the leaves, and the actions of the caretaker constituted fly tipping. The resident highlighted her unhappiness with the incorrect information she had been given and that the landlord was not taking any action. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process.
On 29 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed the previous requests had been managed as service requests and not as complaints as it was deemed there had been no service failure at that time. As a result, the complaint could not be escalated to stage 2 of the process. The landlord confirmed as the matter was unresolved, it would be managed as a service recovery. It told the resident the complaint should be acknowledged within 2 working days with a full response provided within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 July 2020. It acknowledged the resident’s email from 26 June 2020 in which the resident stated incorrect information had been given. The landlord informed the resident a senior manager would contact her directly to discuss the matter.
On 12 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. She said she was receiving contradictory information, and all parties were confused regarding the service failures and complaints. She stated the landlord was making it difficult and confusing for residents to make any progress. The resident said what had started as a simple request for the correct disposal of waste had turned into a “fiasco” which had caused a lot of wasted time, money, and resource. The resident asked for a copy of the complaint policy and procedure which specified all the steps the landlord had referred to.
Although the evidence has not been provided, in an email from the resident dated 25 August 2020, she confirmed the waste had been removed. The resident reported more waste had been dumped by the caretaker after the first batch had been removed. The landlord told the resident it would be removed on 28 August 2020.
On 2 October 2020, the resident reported the third incident of fly tipping by the caretaker.
On 30 October 2020, the resident emailed this Service. She advised she had been complaining about a member of staff fly tipping. She said contractors had cleared the waste, but the cost may have been added to their service charge. The resident said the landlord was not complying with its complaint policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). She stated that despite her efforts of reporting the problem, the member of staff continued to fly tip. The resident asked for help in progressing her complaint.
This Service emailed the landlord on 3 November 2020 and confirmed the detail of the complaint received from the resident. The landlord was asked to respond to the resident under the complaint process within 15 working days. The landlord informed this Service that no formal complaint had been logged regarding the fly tipping and asked us for a complaint reference number.
On 18 November 2020, this Service sent the landlord the chronology of events that the resident had provided. The landlord was told that if it was still unclear as to what the complaint was, it should contact the resident directly. A formal response was requested by 24 November 2020.
The resident emailed this Service on 6 December 2020 to advise she had not received a response from the landlord.
On 8 January 2021, this Service contacted the landlord. We referred to the previous request made on 18 November 2020 for a response to be sent to the resident. The landlord was given 5 working days to provide a response.
The resident emailed this Service on 18 January 2021 to advise she had not received any communication from the landlord.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident with an update on the fly tipping complaint. It advised more time was required and it aimed to respond by 10 February 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2021 to advise no response had been received. The landlord spoke to the resident. It apologised for the delay and explained it was waiting for all the findings so everything could be reviewed and responded to. A new response date of 5 March 2021 was given.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord provided the stage 1 response to the resident. It stated the resident had raised concern over frequent fly tipping on the estate and had asked for dummy cameras and signage to be installed. The response addressed a variety of communal estate matters; regarding the fly tipping, it concluded that a project was underway to see how mobile CCTV could be used to help combat fly tipping and that the resident should let it know if she knew the perpetrator.
The resident emailed the landlord and this Service on 8 March 2021. She advised further waste had been fly tipped by a contractor on to land that did not belong to the landlord.
This Service emailed the landlord on 16 April 2021. We confirmed the resident had complained about fly tipping and how the landlord had managed the complaint. The landlord was told to confirm by 7 May 2021 if these were historical issues and, if so, to provide copies of the complaint response letters.
On 30 April 2021, the resident emailed this Service. The resident stated that following the landlord’s contact on 15 February 2021, she had not received any communication regarding the fly tipping from the caretaker or the contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord and this Service again on 10 May 2021. She advised the caretaker had fly tipped large fallen branches onto neighbouring land. She said none of the items from the emails dated 8 March 2021 and 30 April 2021 had been dealt with, and no further communication had been received from the landlord.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the lack of communication and for the outstanding issues. It advised the matter would be passed on to investigate and to respond in a couple of days.
The resident received an email from the landlord on 11 May 2021. She was asked if she had witnessed the caretaker depositing the branches, and if the branches were still there. The resident confirmed she did not see the caretaker put the branches over the fence. She had noticed fresh branches had been dumped over the fence. She had recalled a large fallen branch from the previous week in the garage area. When she looked over the fence, the branches had been dumped there. The resident advised she had spoken to a member of staff on site to ask if he knew who put the branches over the fence. She said he was reluctant to say anything but had confirmed he had cleared the far end of the estate and the caretaker had cleared the area where the branches had been fly tipped. The landlord told her it expected the issues with the branches to be resolved that day.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord provided this Service with a copy of the letter sent to the resident on 23 February 2021.
A further email was sent from the landlord to this Service on 26 May 2021. It advised a holding letter had been sent to the resident who had asked for a review. The landlord had told the resident it hoped to respond by 12 June 2021.
On 3 June 2021, this Service emailed the landlord to advise the complaint response letter did not include all the complaint points. The issue regarding the fly tipping had not exhausted the complaint process. The landlord informed this Service it was trying to resolve the issue locally with the resident.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 13 June 2021. The landlord had stated it would provide a response to the complaint by 12 June 2021. As the deadline had lapsed, this Service asked for confirmation if a response had been issued, and for a copy of the response. The landlord was given until 5 July 2021 to provide the requested information.
The landlord provided the resident with the stage 2 complaint response on 30 July 2021. It referred to service charges, tenancy agreements and grounds maintenance.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord emailed the final response to this Service. It was highlighted to the landlord that the letter did not include the resident’s escalation rights. This Service contacted the resident to confirm the stage 2 response letter had been received. The resident was told if she wished to escalate the complaint, she should send an email confirming this and the reasons why.
On 26 September 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that the issue of fly tipping from the caretaker and contractor had not been addressed within the final response letter. She confirmed she removed some branches on 2 March 2021, and the rubble left by the contractor on 8 March 2021. The resident asked this Service for help in resolving the outstanding issues.
On 5 January 2022, this Service emailed the resident regarding the complaint. It was confirmed that although the final response letter did not address the points about fly tipping, it could still be investigated if there was evidence the landlord had reasonable opportunity to respond through its complaint process. The resident was asked to provide a copy of the escalation request following the letter dated 23 February 2021.
On 17 May 2022, this Service emailed the landlord in respect of the complaint. It was confirmed that the final response letter did not address the fly tipping issues. The resident wanted to refer these issues to this Service, but we asked the landlord to confirm if the issue regarding fly tipping had exhausted the complaint process.
The resident told this Service that the landlord had called her on 27 May 2022. It acknowledged the complaint and profusely apologised for its failure in dealing with it properly. It assured her it would deal with the complaint, however by 24 June 2022, she had not received any further communication.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord called the resident with an update. It advised the staff member had been off poorly but was now back and had picked the complaint back up.
The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 29 June 2022. While it had hoped to have provided a response, it needed more time to check the details and confirm the actions it was to deliver on. A new date of 12 July 2022 was given for a response.
On 18 July 2022, the resident informed this Service that after the update on 29 June 2022, she had not received any further communication from the landlord.
The landlord provided a further final response letter on 2 August 2022. The landlord’s response confirmed the following:
1. The resident had raised dissatisfaction with the caretaker fly tipping branches onto neighbouring land.
2. The landlord had told the resident it was a legal requirement to do this. The resident had provided evidence to show there is a requirement to offer it to the owner, but as the owner was not known, the landlord was responsible for removing it.
3. It did not follow its own guidance and left branches on neighbouring land.
4. The resident had tried on several occasions to raise this, but the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory response.
5. It had failed to respond to the issues in its stage 2 complaint response.
6. It was to use the findings from this case to improve services in the future. Specific feedback would be given to those involved in the historic cases.
7. The landlord offered £350 compensation (£50 for the delay, £150 for the time and trouble, and £150 for the inconvenience).
On 1 July 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted to refer the case for investigation. She stated she was going to accept the offer, but believed the reasons for the complaint and the poor handling of the issues warranted an investigation. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident asked for the following to be confirmed:
1. How this issue will be managed by the landlord in the future to stop it from happening again.
2. What action will be put in place to prevent the poor complaint handling in the future and to ensure complaints are addressed in full.
3. If the costs associated with the contractor used to remove the caretaker’s fly tipping had been added to residents’ service charge bills.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s estate management procedure confirms:
1. Estate inspections should identify issues such as fly tipping. These should be managed and escalated to other departments.
2. When undertaking an estate inspection, managers should use the inspection form and then check and document everything. It should evidence any action taken.
The landlord’s complaint and compensation policy states:
1. If a case is quick to resolve or requires little investigation, the resident can choose the informal complaint route. The landlord would contact the resident within 1 working day and would provide an answer within 5 working days. If an informal complaint is unsuccessful, due to missed deadlines or the resident being dissatisfied, the informal complaint will be escalated to a formal stage 1 complaint.
2. Stage 1 complaints will be formally acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. If extra time is required at either stage, this will not exceed 10 working days.
3. Compensation payments may be offered in recognition of:
  1. Time and trouble taken by the resident to make the complaint.
  2. Distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Fly tipping

The resident reported the fly tipping by the caretaker on 4 January 2020. She asked for the area to be cleared and for a call back, however there is no evidence the landlord fulfilled either request. In not responding to the resident, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve this issue quickly and to stop it from escalating further. Due to the lack of action and communication, a month later, the resident had to invest more time chasing the landlord. There is no evidence to confirm what the resident was told at this time; however, it is noted she was given a new case reference. This would suggest it was logged as a new enquiry rather than it being a continuous enquiry from January 2020. This raises concern with the landlord’s contact management and the ability to respond effectively and in a timely manner to resident’s queries. The raising of a new enquiry may have unnecessarily delayed progress in the action taken.
Two months later, the resident had to chase progress again which this Service finds unreasonable and caused more inconvenience for her. It is noted that the landlord spoke to the resident on 3 March 2020 and advised her of the legal obligation regarding the branches. However, on 1 April 2020, the resident provided the landlord with contradictory evidence which suggested the landlord was responsible for disposing of the branches. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the information provided by the resident. While the resident asked again for the waste to be removed, there is no evidence this happened. The landlord failed at this opportunity to stop this issue escalating by clearing the land of the branches and replying to the resident’s evidence.
The resident raised the fly tipping again with the landlord during estate inspections on 22 May 2020 and 12 June 2020. There is no evidence to confirm the actions taken following the estate inspections. By not evidencing this, the landlord has failed to follow its own procedure. There is no evidence of an explanation to the resident as to why it had not removed the waste. The Ombudsman finds the delay in action and lack of communication unreasonable. Six months after the initial report, the resident was still asking the landlord when the waste would be removed.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord told the resident it had spoken to the caretaker. He had confirmed the tree was on neighbouring land therefore he believed it was right to put the branches back on that land. This suggests the caretaker accepted responsibility for putting the branches back onto the land but was also unaware of the protocol around this. On receipt of the contradictory evidence from the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify the legal position, before taking the necessary action of instructing its staff on the process and arranging for the removal of the branches. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action.
On 26 June 2020, when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, she was advised a senior manager would contact her to discuss the fly tipping. There was no timeframe given as to when this call would be made, and there is no evidence to confirm if or when the call took place. This raises concerns regarding the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue and to stop it from happening again, causing frustration for the resident.
On 25 August 2020, the resident confirmed the branches had been removed by a contractor. The Ombudsman finds the 8-month delay in removing the branches excessive and unreasonable. There was no communication to the resident to explain why it took so long, and no confirmation as to what it had done to stop this from happening again.
The resident also informed the landlord that more branches had been fly tipped by the caretaker and that she was advised via email that these would be removed on 28 August 2020; however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the email interaction or confirmation that this waste was removed by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this further allegation with the caretaker and for its findings to be fed back to the resident. There is no evidence of any action taken by the landlord. As this was the second report regarding the same member of staff, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s management of this issue ineffective.
The resident reported a third incident of fly tipping by the caretaker to the landlord on 2 October 2020 via a Teams conference. As the allegations against the caretaker continued, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to speak to the caretaker. There is no evidence to confirm what the landlord did about this continuing issue. This Service finds this unreasonable.
As the problem was ongoing, the resident contacted this Service for assistance in reaching a resolution. She said that although she had continued to report the fly tipping, the caretaker continued to do it.
On 8 March 2021, the resident reported additional fly tipping by a contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm it responded appropriately to this report by discussing it with the contractor. It then failed to communicate its actions effectively with the resident, who was left not knowing if the landlord was acting on her report.
The resident reported further fly tipping by the caretaker on 10 May 2021. The landlord asked the resident if she had seen him do it. The resident confirmed she had not seen him but detailed a conversation she had with another team member about it. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to interview the team member, there is no evidence to suggest it did. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate the effective management of this issue.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the fly tipping. Without justification or explanation, it took 7 months to remove the initial fly tipped material from the land. There was email evidence from February 2020 to June 2022 of the resident asking for updates as to when the waste would be removed, yet little evidence of the landlord responding. There was evidence of poor communication, poor record keeping and poor contact management which affected the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue.
There was a lack of evidence to confirm the landlord complied with its own procedures around estate inspections. This led to the resident investing time, effort, and inconvenience in trying to get the issue resolved. The landlord took until 2 August 2022 to address the issue of fly tipping from the caretaker. The landlord acknowledged its own failures in addressing the reports of fly tipping and agreed it had not followed its own guidance. It acknowledged it failed to provide a satisfactory response despite the efforts of the resident. The landlord however did not evidence how it had learned any detailed lessons from this issue, how it addressed the fly tipping of the caretaker or contractor, and how it would address reports of fly tipping in the future.
The landlord offered £350 compensation for the delay, time, trouble, and inconvenience in its August 2022 final complaint response. The landlord did not make it clear what part of this compensation was for the fly tipping and what was for the complaint handling. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £350 compensation offered to the resident was proportionate redress for the fly tipping failings alone. However, the failure of the landlord to specifically address in its final complaint response how the failings had occurred, whether it agreed with the resident’s view on returning garden waste to the neighbouring land and what it had done to learn lessons from the case. Overall, the landlord did not offer sufficient redress.

Associated complaint

The resident notified the landlord of the fly tipping within a communal repair form in January 2020. A reference number was given for the enquiry, but it is unclear if this was for the repair aspect, or the fly tipping. This may have caused confusion when the resident chased progress with the landlord a month later and was given a new reference number. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assign different reference numbers for each issue. This would have provided clarity to all involved would allow the landlord to manage the contact more effectively. This would also have helped both parties when tracking the enquiry through to completion.
The resident asked for the issue to be escalated to a formal complaint on 6 April 2020, but the landlord raised a service recovery. The landlord’s complaint policy states a resident can choose the informal route if little investigation is required. There is no evidence of this option being discussed with the resident. In taking this approach, the landlord has not demonstrated effective communication with the resident and has not complied with its complaint policy. The resident clearly highlighted her continued dissatisfaction. The landlord should have recognised this and, in line with its complaint policy and the Code, a stage 1 complaint should have been raised. In any case, there is no evidence of a response to the service recovery logged on 8 April 2020. In the Ombudsman opinion, the landlord has failed to manage this complaint effectively and did not comply with the timescale of responding to an informal complaint.
The resident had to spend more time and effort chasing the landlord for updates throughout May and June 2020. Despite the resident’s request for a formal complaint to be raised in April 2020, the landlord told her it could not find the complaint. This may have caused more frustration for the resident who had initially raised the matter 4 months previously.
The landlord responded to the resident via email on 23 June 2020. The resident remained dissatisfied as she believed incorrect information had been provided. On 26 June 2020, she asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process.
The landlord told the resident her previous contacts had not been logged as a complaint therefore she could not escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 June 2020.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 July 2020, and advised a senior member of management would contact her about the fly tipping. While the email was within the 10-working day timescale, it did not offer a resolution or indication when the contact would be made. There is no evidence to confirm the call took place, therefore it is difficult to determine what was discussed or agreed. On 30 October 2020, the resident was still waiting for a response, and so she contacted this Service asking for assistance in reaching a resolution.
This Service initially contacted the landlord on 3 November 2020 to ask for the complaint to be investigated. Additional contact was made by this Service through to January 2021 when the landlord informed the resident it needed more time and would respond by 10 February 2021. The landlord then extended the deadline to 5 March 2021, explaining it was waiting for all the findings so everything could be reviewed and responded to.
It took almost 8 months for the landlord to provide its stage 1 response. The delay in responding to the resident was unreasonable and significantly over the timescales laid out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, the response did not address the issue of the caretaker fly tipping onto land and so no progress had been made on the matter. The complaint response highlighted a lack of understanding as to what the complaint was about. Despite all the communication from the resident and this Service, the landlord failed to address the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord and this Service on 10 May 2021 to advise she had not received a response from the landlord. It is noted that the landlord had provided the stage 1 response on 23 February 2021, however, as stated, this letter did not address the fly tipping from the caretaker and so the complaint raised by the resident effectively remained outstanding.
On 26 May 2021, the landlord informed this Service that the resident had asked for a review. This request was not provided as evidence therefore it is unclear when this was received and what it included. The landlord told the resident it hoped to respond by 12 June 2021.
A stage 2 response was provided on 30 July 2021, at least 46 days after it was requested. This response failed to address the fly tipping by the caretaker and did not include the resident’s right to escalate the complaint to this Service. This was the second missed opportunity to address the issue. This raises concerns over the landlord’s complaint handling, record keeping, communication with the resident and compliance with its complaint policy and the Code.
The Ombudsman informed the landlord that the resident wished for the complaint to be referred to us. It was asked to confirm if the fly tipping issue had exhausted the complaint process. The landlord had called the resident on 27 May 2022 and apologised for its failure in dealing with the complaint. It assured her it would deal with the complaint but did not respond in full until 2 August 2022. This was 2 years and 7 months after the issue was first reported.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The evidence suggests the case was not managed effectively from the start and this prolonged the process unnecessarily. There was evidence of poor and delayed communication with the resident, and poor record keeping and contact management. This led to missed timescales and failures to comply with the complaint policy and the Code. A lot of time, effort and inconvenience was spent by the resident contacting the landlord.
The landlord failed to address the initial complaint issue in the responses sent in February 2021 and July 2021. It took until the final response in August 2022 for the issue to be addressed in full and for the landlord to recognise its failings around this case. It did not however show how it had learned lessons from its handling of the complaint. It is expected that the landlord has a sound understanding of the nature of the complaint to allow it to address matters effectively and to reduce the complaint being escalated. It is a concern that this may not have been sent if it were not for the involvement of this Service.
Given the Ombudsman’s view is that £350 compensation was proportionate for the fly tipping failings alone, additional compensation has been ordered for the separate complaint handling failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of fly tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord responding to the initial fly tipping enquiry. This led to the resident investing unnecessary time and effort in obtaining a resolution. The landlord took an unreasonable length of time to remove the branches which was not explained. The landlord did not follow its procedure for managing and escalating issues identified during estate inspections. There was no evidence to demonstrate how the landlord investigated and managed the issue of repeated fly tipping by the same member of staff and how it addressed the fly tipping with the contractor.
The landlord failed to effectively manage the complaint from the outset. It continued to log service requests and “service recovery” when it was clear the resident was unhappy and asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord failed to meet the timescales at any stage throughout the process and did not communicate the reasons for the delays with the resident. It took the landlord an unreasonable length of time to respond to the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint, and it still failed to address the root cause of the complaint within the responses. The issue of fly tipping effectively took 2 years and 7 months to address.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident offering a sincere apology for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident the £350 compensation offered within the letter dated 2 August 2022.
3. Pay the resident £350 additional compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failings.
The compensation should be paid directly to the resident rather than being offset against any rent or service charge account.
The landlord should provide an explanation to this Service and the resident of the learning that it said it took from the complaint, including:
1. how it will ensure that it follows up on fly tipping reports in future;
2. how it will ensure that its staff and contractors are aware of the arrangements they should make to dispose of branches and garden waste;
3. how it will ensure that it keeps accurate records of findings and follow up actions following estate inspections.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should confirm to the resident and this Service that no charges were added to service charges for the removal of the fly tipped waste.