Islington Council (202127226)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127226

Islington Council

25 July 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s decision to lease out a bin storage area on the estate, without consultation.
2. The landlord’s decision not to reduce the rent charged to residents following the leasing of the bin storage area.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision of, and access to, bins on the estate.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all of the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision not to reduce the rent following the leasing of the storage area falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
In correspondence with this Service on 13 July 2022, the resident highlighted that she believed that the bin facilities were an essential part of the services provided to residents. She added that these were paid for through rents and service charges.
She further expressed her complaint about this issue within her communication of 19 August 2022. She said that “the landlord [had] at no point reduced the rents when this facility was withdrawn from tenants and leased off … .”
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that the resident raised this concern with the landlord during the course of her complaints. As such, the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider the resident’s concerns and provide a response, and the matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It is important that a landlord has the opportunity to address a complaint under its own complaints procedure before it is considered by this Service. Should the resident remain concerned about this issue, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord accordingly. If the matter exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure, and the resident remains unhappy with the response she has received, she may refer the matter to this Service as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, occupying a 2 bedroom property on the 11th floor of a block of flats. Her tenancy commenced in May 2013.
The block of flats is located on a larger estate for which the landlord has estate management responsibilities, including waste management and bicycle storage.
The bin store is a brick building in a car park on the estate, located close to the block of flats in which the resident lives.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 11 June 2021 in relation to the bike store. She asked if the previous fob access could be repaired or replaced as she felt that the existing padlock was insecure. The landlord advised that due to funding restrictions it was unable to repair the fob system but would check the current padlock and chain was secure.
On 18 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked what was happening with the old bin store. She said that works appeared to be taking place to block up the entrance near the bike store, and to open the entrance on to the street. The resident added that she had also heard that the bin store was going to be turned into a launderette. She said that this seemed “bizarre” as there had not been any consultation about a change of use.
The landlord responded on 2 July 2021 to advise that the bin store had been let, with authorisation given for the building to be used for storage. It further confirmed on 7 July 2021, that the building had been let and not sold.
On 31 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. Within this she said:
1. The bin store had been let to a private dry cleaning business.
2. That residents had not been consulted in the change of use or the exclusive private use of a publicly owned building.
3. That this could result in extra noise, potential antisocial hours, fumes, and odour.
4. The bin store had not been used for commercial purposes before.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 August 2021. Within this the landlord said:
1. The former bin store had been let in December 2020 as the area housing office had advised that it was “surplus to requirements”.
2. It aimed to generate income from non-residential assets to supplement residential rents.
3. It was not required to consult on commercial lettings, as this did not relate to the management of its homes and service delivery to residents.
4. The building had been let on a five year lease for use as storage or as a community laundry.
5. For a community laundry to be established, this would require statutory consents, which would have to be sought by the tenant.
6. It did not feel that there would be significant noise or antisocial hours.
7. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and made a request to escalate her complaint on 31 August 2021. In her contact with the landlord, she said:
1. The landlord’s response “made no reference to the laws and policy … which the officer should be following, and provided no evidence to support the officers’ case, other than a belief that they had made the decision correctly.” She requested documentation that confirmed that the decision could be taken without consultation.
2. That it had “referred the matter to the person who had made the decision and wholly accepted their version. This is a case of the officer ‘marking his own homework’.”
3. That the housing team had not consulted anyone when it said the bin store was surplus to requirements. It had not considered the needs of the estate for storage, or other alternative uses for the space such as bike or mobility scooter storage.
4. The bin store was part of the estate facilities. It had been built on the estate several years ago to provide housing for the large bins, which at the time residents had been advised could not be left out on the estate. It was not surplus to requirements, and she asked if it was lawful to have a row of bins and rubbish piled up, or if the landlord was going to build a new bin store.
5. That this was not a commercial letting as it was not a commercial building. She added that this was a “change of use” as it would not be used as a bin store. She therefore questioned how it could have been let for a purpose for which it did not have planning permission. She asked if there had been planning consultation.
6. The use of the term “community” was confusing in the context of the future use for the building, and enquired if this was to be a free facility for the use of residents.
7. That “a complaint must be considered in an impartial way. It should include evidence and reference the legislation and policy supporting the decision making. Without these things the response is pointless affirmation of the officers right to do whatever he wants.”
In line with its complaints policy of the time, on 14 September 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 review response to the resident. In this it set out that the purpose of this stage of its procedure was to review the investigation that had been carried out at stage 1, to see if anything had been missed. In its review letter the landlord set out the legislation on which its decision had been based and said:
1. “The former bin store as part of the estate, is held by the landlord for housing purposes under the Housing Act 1985. Section 32 of the 1985 Act permits the landlord to dispose of land so held with the Secretary of State’s consent.”
2. The Secretary of State issued the General Housing Consents 2013, under section 32 of the 1985 Act. This permitted the landlord to dispose of vacant land and assets that are not dwellings, such as garages or bin stores either through sale or the grant of a lease. “The rent received from the lease is ringfenced for housing purposes.”
3. “Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to consult with all secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management such as changes to the management and maintenance of its homes …. The former bin store was not in use and was regarded as surplus to the requirements of the Estate. Its letting for a term of 5 years on a lease … was not considered a matter of housing management upon which the landlord was required to consult.”
4. The 5 year lease granted for the former bin store required the tenant to seek planning permission, where required.
5. Having considered its initial response, and the additional legal advice, it was happy that there was no service failure and that the complaint had correctly been not upheld.
The resident responded on 26 September 2021 requesting a further escalation of her complaint as she felt that her questions had not been answered in the landlord’s responses. In this she:
1. Said that the landlord’s response seemed to rest on its belief that the estate did not need a bin store. However, it had not addressed the questions she had asked about “how this could possibly be the case.”
2. Asked if provision was being made for bin storage and at whose expense.
3. Provided photographs of the estate showing the (then) current arrangements with bins overflowing, and around 13 bins with no storage.
4. Stated that there was no disabled access to the bins, the previous step access having been knocked down. She further said that given their height it was difficult for elderly and disabled residents and children to use the bins provided.
5. Said that tenants had made a request for the bin store to be made available for bike or disabled scooter storage if it was not going to be used as a bin store. As such it was not surplus to requirements.
6. Questioned the future use of the building; the landlord had advised it would be used as a laundry but no planning application for this change had been made. Without this she questioned how the landlord could know that there would be no extra noise affecting residents.
7. Advised that she wanted her questions responded to and the building returned to estate use.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 29 September 2021 and advised that it was experiencing a high volume of complaints.
The resident has advised this Service that until November 2021, she received monthly contact from the landlord confirming that her complaint remained on hold. She had received no further contact from the landlord from that date.
The resident first contacted this Service on 12 March 2022 as she had received no response to her stage 2 escalation request. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2022 advising of the resident’s contact and asked it to respond to her by 28 March 2022.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord contacted this Service to advise that it was experiencing a backlog in its complaint handling. It said that its investigation into the resident’s complaint was due to commence on 29 April 2022. It further advised that it regularly updated the resident.
The resident followed up with this Service on 19 May 2022 as she had still not received a response to her escalation request.
On 7 June 2022, officers of the landlord met with the estate residents’ association to discuss the waste service facilities, alongside other estate wide improvements. Action points from the meeting included:
1. A review of waste storage facilities across the estate.
2. A review of the suitability of the existing building, which it noted was subject to a lease.
3. A review of the number of waste collections taking place.
The landlord provided a stage 2 reply to the resident on 17 June 2022. This set out the detail of the resident’s complaint in the following terms:
1. The rubbish bins on the estate were overflowing and there was a need for additional bin storage.
2. Residents had made a request for the former bin store to be used to store bikes and mobility scooters. That the storage area, which had been let out commercially, was not surplus to requirements and should be returned for estate use.
3. That there was a need for disabled access to the bins. The height of the existing bins meant that they are not accessible to all residents.
4. Her concern about noise that commercial business activity may generate and a request to know what terms had been agreed with the tenant for the use of the building.
5. The remedy sought was for her questions to be addressed and the building to be returned for estate use.
In its reply, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged and apologised for the delay in replying to the resident’s complaint. It offered £75 for this delay.
2. Acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with previous complaint responses, but noted that the issue of the bins overflowing, and accessibility had only been raised in escalating her complaint on 26 September 2021.
3. Confirmed that her original complaint had followed the landlord’s decision to lease a storage facility on the estate, and that the lease was for a five year term. This was granted in line with the landlord’s policy to “generate income from vacant assets as a contribution to the cost of delivering services to residents.”
4. Advised that the bin store had not been in use as a bin store for 10 years and had not been used at all since 2018.
5. Said that it had discussed the proposed letting of the former bin store with councillors. It had not consulted with residents on its decision as it was not required to do so, as this did not fall under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. It had been advised that “the decision to grant a lease for an unused asset is not a housing management matter upon which [it] has to consult.”
6. Confirmed that under the terms of the lease, the permitted use of the premises was restricted to storage and a community laundry. It understood it was currently being used for storage, with a view to possibly establishing a laundrette facility for the community in the future. It did not consider this type of business activity would generate “substantive noise,” cause antisocial behaviour, or cause inconvenience to estate residents.
7. Further stated that, as advised at stage 1, any planning permission required to carry out the permitted use was the responsibility of the tenant. The same applied to any trading licence that may be required to operate as a laundry.
8. Reconfirmed the advice given in its stage 1 response, that its decision to grant the lease was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 and the General Housing Consents 2013.
9. Acknowledged the resident’s report that there was a need for bin storage because the existing bins were often overflowing. It stated its belief that the current bin provision for the block was adequate but that between collections these may become untidy. It said that a review of the current arrangements and collection schedule was underway. The landlord’s staff had met with the residents’ association and were working with them to improve bin storage facilities on the estate.
10. Responded to the resident’s request for more accessible bins by advising that it had undertaken a trial of a different style of bin. It advised that this had been less than successful, and its estate team were continuing to review the accessibility of the waste facilities. It further advised that the estate team aimed to remove all bulky waste items within 24 hours.
11. Said that the estate team was unaware of a request to use the former bin store as a store for bikes and mobility scooters, and that a recent inspection of the existing bike store found it to be both secure and in use. It explained that its housing transport team would be reviewing existing facilities across the estate, with a remit to improve and increase cycle storage facilities. It would further look at the provision of space for mobility scooters.
12. Explained that the lease granted for the former bin store did not expire until 2025. The lease contained specific clauses which set out the circumstances under which the lease could be brought to an end. It was not able to meet her request that the facility be vacated and returned for the use of estate residents.
13. Stated that while residents may disagree with its decision to lease premises on the estate to a local business, its complaints process could only consider whether that decision was consistent with relevant legislation, council policy and recognised good practice. It concluded that it was satisfied that the response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint addressed the substantive points raised, including the legal position in terms of its ability to lease an unused asset without consulting residents.
14. Confirmed that arrangements for storage and disposal of waste, alongside facilities for bike and mobility scooter storage were under review, as part of the landlord’s wider strategy to improve facilities on the estate.
The landlord has advised this Service, that from July 2022 refuse collections for the resident’s block of flats and a neighbouring block, were increased from 4 times a week to daily collections. Recycling collections were similarly increased from twice weekly to three times a week. This was a temporary measure until new waste facilities were in place.
On 13 July 2022, the resident contacted this Service to raise her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She stated, “I would like to formally complain about the actions of the landlord to dispose of estate assets and would see the return of them to the estate as the outcome.” Her complaint focused on the issues she had raised with her landlord through its complaints process. She said:
1. The landlord’s response was inadequate and contradictory, and that most of its claims were unsubstantiated. She had complained about it leasing a ‘bin store’ on the estate to a private business. As a result, the bins were left out on estate pathways. As these were open bins this had encouraged both fly tipping and rats, and led to a general degrading of the estate.
2. There was a lack of transparency around the process of leasing the building and no planning application had been made for a change of use. There had been no consultation with residents, or publicity of the availability of the store for letting.
3. The landlord had responded to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by sending no documentation. It had sent an email which repeated what it had said in its complaint responses.
4. The landlord claimed that the bin store was a vacant asset which had not been in use since 2018 and had not been used as a bin store for 10 years. It had provided no evidence to support this claim and the resident disputed this. The resident stated that “housing services had a history of locking up facilities which had problems” and that “the landlord’s caretakers were reluctant to use the bin store.”
5. The bin store was badly designed and needed modification, but that its disuse had been incremental, and no alternative provision had been made. The bin facilities for the estate were inadequate. There was no bin housing provided and the existing store, which had been taken out of use, was in the most appropriate space on the estate to provide this storage. This should be returned to the estate and adapted to meet the needs of all residents.
6. The complaint response stated that the potential letting had been discussed with councillors beforehand. The resident stated that “our ward councillors say that they were not consulted.”
7. Further to this the landlord said, “there was no prior consultation with residents because, under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, the decision to grant a lease for an unused asset is not a housing management matter upon which the landlord has to consult.” The resident disagreed with this. She said that she believed that “there was an obligation to consult under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 as this was a facility that residents were paying rent for.”
8. Bin facilities were an essential part of the services provided to residents and paid for through rents and service charges, the bin store was located on the estate, and was built because of a campaign by tenants in the 1990’s.
9. There had been no reduction to residents’ rent when this facility was withdrawn and leased privately.
10. The resident disputed the landlord’s comments about noise, ASB and inconvenience to residents. She added that the ‘tenant’ had completed works to the bin store without permission and the landlord had not stopped this. She had spoken to the planning department who told her that it had received no complaints about the work from the landlord. The statement that the landlord did not consider there would be noise was unsubstantiated and suggested “a judgement made before any investigation or consultation.”
11. That the involvement of the residents’ association was because of “the outrage that the landlord could privately let the bin facilities.”
12. There was no evidence of any consultation with residents, or an investigation into disabled access to the bins, or action taken to ensure accessibility.
13. No action had been taken to improve the security to the existing bike store despite her complaint. There had been no consultation with residents on the timeframe or remit of the proposed review by the Housing Transport Team.
14. The landlord’s response to her complaint claims that “the existing contractual arrangement with the leaseholder can be terminated under certain circumstances” but it failed to provide a copy of the lease under the FOI request.
15. “… this complaint has not been adequately addressed as it unquestioningly repeats the claims of council staff without any impartiality or investigation. This is compounded by the failure of the landlord to provide any documentation in response to a FOI request.”
16. The complaints procedure had taken too long, with her complaint outstanding at stage 2 for 8 months.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 26 August 2022, representatives from the landlord’s estate and environmental services teams carried out a joint visit to the estate with a local councillor to consider the waste facilities and bin storage provision. Following this it established a “task and finish” group to complete a review of bin storage and waste facilities on the estate.
The landlord advised this Service that it met with the resident on 22 September 2022. It provided her with an update on its proposals for the provision of waste facilities for the estate. It advised that this was a positive meeting. No notes of the discussion have been provided.
On 11 October 2022, or thereabouts, the landlord met with the residents’ association to discuss its proposals for the layout of bin and bike storage across the estate. The landlord recorded that residents were generally happy with its proposals and that it would be proceeding with the first part of the project.

Landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Conditions of tenancy

The resident’s conditions of tenancy set out the roles and responsibilities of the resident and the landlord in regard to repairs and maintenance of the property. Point 1.1 states that the landlord is responsible for:
1. Keeping in repair and proper working order … lifts, rubbish chutes and shared lighting, serving the building or estate, of which the property forms a part.
At point 2, under the heading of consultation, the conditions of tenancy state:

“Before varying this agreement, the landlord will consult you about any proposed change and consider your comments within a reasonable time. They will then let you know about the change. This does not apply to changes to your rent, rates, charges or other payments or services the landlord provides.”

At point 10, under the heading of disposal of rubbish, it states:

“You must put household rubbish into the containers provided for this purpose. You must not dump rubbish on any area of the property or estate. You must dispose of all large items of rubbish or household waste in a safe and appropriate way.”

Recycling and refuse storage requirements guide

The landlord’s recycling and refuse storage requirements guide provides information for “architects and others concerned with providing recycling and refuse storage facilities for premises” within the landlord’s remit. This sets out the considerations for bin storage within developments and the level of waste that should be catered for.
It further establishes the likely collection arrangements and requirements for vehicular access.
At section 6 under the heading of containers, the guide sets out the minimum number of separate containers that should be provided for the storage of waste and recyclable materials. It also specifies that waste storage areas “must be large enough to allow access to all containers.”

HRA non-residential property portfolio – decision making process

This report was produced on 26 February 2018. It considered the potential for generating additional income from unused assets that the landlord had within its housing portfolio. It concluded:

“The housing revenue account (HRA) has a significant number of non-residential properties that have the propensity to generate significant levels of income for the HRA over the coming years. Where these buildings are not required for service delivery and operational purposes and would not lend themselves to re-development into residential accommodation, the landlord should seek to maximise the income generated through this portfolio to offset the impact of diminishing resources that the landlord faces.”

Complaints policy

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, sets out how it would deal with complaints. The landlord operated a 2 stage procedure. At stage 1, the policy stated that “the first stage and first stage review is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated”. The second stage was the Chief Executive stage which is handled by the landlord’s corporate central complaints team.
In terms of timescales, the policy stated that a complaint should be acknowledged within 3 calendar days, and a response should be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. If the complainant requests the escalation of their complaint, it can be dealt with as a stage 1 review. Once a stage 1 response and a stage 1 review has been completed, and if the complainant remains unhappy, the matter will be referred to the corporate central complaints team so that a review of the complaint can take place. A full response should then be issued within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord published an updated complaints policy on its website on 23 March 2023. This provides updated complaint stages and timeframes for dealing with stage 1 and stage 2 complaints which correspond with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Compensation guidance

The landlord’s compensation guidance advises that where a complaint has been upheld “it is appropriate that the landlord should take action to rectify any problems that are due to mistakes or negligence…”
The aim of this guidance is to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity. It recognises that compensation may not always be financial but that it should be appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of an individual complaint.
This guidance provides a framework for financial compensation and advises that “we should be mindful that the compensation should reflect the injustice that the complainant has experienced.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to lease out a bin storage area on the estate without consultation.

The landlord advised that the bin store had not been in use for the purpose of storing waste bins since 2018 and that it had not been regularly used for a period of 10 years. The landlord added that the bin store was not used due to access issues. There was stepped access, and this made it inaccessible to some residents, and not suitable for the purposes for which it had been designed.
The resident disputed this and stated her belief that this continued to be an estate asset which should have been available for the use of residents.
No evidence has been presented by the landlord to confirm when, and from what date, the bin store stopped being used by residents. The resident, having disputed the landlord’s claim, has provided no evidence of the continued use of the bin store by residents.
The comments made by both parties have been considered. From the evidence that is available, it is not possible to confirm when the bin store stopped being used for its primary function.
The evidence does suggest that the bin store was not in use at the time it was leased to a private individual and that this was the position for an extended period prior to that.
The landlord has provided a copy of its decision making paper around its non-residential property portfolio. This focuses on ensuring that the best use is made of all the landlord’s owned assets. This covers vacant land and existing buildings which could either be developed to provide additional residential accommodation or rented or sold to generate additional income to support the landlord in its wider provision of housing services.
In its complaint responses the landlord provided the resident with information about the legislation under which it progressed its decision to lease the bin store. Primarily this was covered by section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 which gives a landlord the power to dispose of vacant land.
Based on section 32 of the Housing Act 1985, in conjunction with its own internally approved paper around the future use of its non-residential property portfolio, the decision to lease the unused bin store was a decision which was fully within the remit of the landlord to take.
The resident’s complaint focused on the landlord’s failure to consult with residents about its intentions to lease the building. In response, the landlord advised that it was not required to consult with residents under the duty set out within section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. This was on the basis that it was an unused asset which it considered was surplus to requirements, and as such not considered a matter of housing management.
It is acknowledged that the resident disagrees. However, the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately considered its position and relied on expert advice when reaching its conclusion.
The evidence indicates that the building was not in use as a bin store when it was let, although the reasons for this are disputed, and as such outside the remit of section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. However, it would have been prudent for the landlord to have publicised its intentions to residents, raised it directly with the residents’ association and generally considered wider consultation before proceeding with the letting, although based on its advice there was no requirement for it to do so. Any consultation would have been beneficial to its building strong relations with its residents.
Despite the landlord not publicising its intentions with residents, in considering all aspects of this part of the resident’s complaint there was no maladministration in the landlord’s action of entering into a private letting agreement for the bin store. The landlord has acted appropriately, in line with its internal procedures and the expert advice it received.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about provision of and accessibility to bins on the estate.

The resident first raised her concerns about the provision of and accessibility to bins with the landlord in her request to escalate her complaint to the chief executive stage, submitted in September 2021. The resident’s earlier complaint correspondence referred only to a lack of storage for the bins on the estate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concern around overflowing bins. Ahead of providing this response, officers of the landlord met with the residents’ association and discussed the wider issues around waste provision for the estate. It advised that a review of its arrangements and collection schedules was underway and that its staff were working with residents to improve bin storage facilities on the estate. This was to include facilities for bike and mobility scooter storage and formed part of a wider strategy of estate improvement.
It is noted that there was a significant delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response. The resident first requested that her complaint be escalated on 26 September 2021 and a response was not provided until 17 June 2022. This delay affected the timeliness of the actions subsequently taken by the landlord.
In its response to the resident’s request for more accessible bins, the landlord advised that it had already undertaken a trial of a different style of bin. It confirmed that its estate team was continuing to review the accessibility of the waste facilities.
The landlord provided evidence of proposals that it had drawn up, in consultation with residents, for the provision of new bin storage facilities across the estate, together with the provision of new and increased cycle storage. These plans are now being progressed by the landlord, although there had been a significant delay between the resident first raising her concerns with the landlord and these plans being drawn up. Reference is made to the former bin store and consideration is being given to how this may be used in the future.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps to engage with residents and involve various teams in drawing up proposals for estate improvement, and to respond to the issues around provision of and accessibility to waste bins. The actions taken by the landlord are closely linked to the issues raised by the resident. While they are reasonable in the circumstances, they may have been taken sooner if the complaint had been progressed in a timely manner. There was service failure by the landlord considering this level of delay.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and stage 1 review within its published timescales. It appropriately responded to each of the points raised, explaining its decision to let the bin store and why it did not consult with residents. In its review response it provided details of the legislation upon which its decision had been based.
In escalating her complaint, the resident raised some additional concerns. The landlord considered these additional elements when concluding its stage 2 review and provided an appropriately detailed response.
It is, however, an obligation of the landlord’s membership of the Ombudsman’s Scheme that it must manage complaints from residents in accordance with its published procedure or, where this is not possible, within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s complaints procedure must be compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code(the Code).
There were significant delays in providing the stage 2 response. It took almost eight months from the resident’s initial request for the landlord to escalate her complaint. This far exceeds the timescales in the landlord’s own procedure in place at the time, or the Code.
The landlord advised in its initial acknowledgement of the complaint that it was facing a large volume of escalated complaints which would lead to a delay in commencing its investigation. It did not however offer any timeframe within which the resident could reasonably expect a response or establish a framework for providing the resident with regular updates. It would have been reasonable to provide this, so as to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident has advised that the landlord did provide regular updates until November 2021. Contact appears then to have ceased and the resident brought her case to this Service in March 2022. Following contact from this Service the landlord advised that it would be commencing its investigation into the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2022. It also advised that it was in contact with the resident, but no evidence of this contact has been provided.
In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to maintain regular contact throughout to provide the resident with reassurance that it was aware that the stage 2 response was outstanding, and that it had not forgotten about the matter.
In its stage 2 reply the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding. It offered the resident £75 compensation in recognition of the delay in responding to her complaint.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that an offer of £25 per month should be considered for delays beyond the “service statutory period”. The landlord’s complaints policy sets a target of 28 calendar days to respond to a complaint at stage 2. From receipt of the resident’s complaint until it provided a response on 17 June 2022 a total of 264 calendar days elapsed. A period of almost eight months outside its published timescale.
The landlord did not set out its basis for compensation in its complaint response, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord acted reasonably in deciding to offer £75 for the extensive delay, and not £25 per month in line with its guidance.
It is noted that the landlord also offered £75 compensation in other complaints considered around this time, where there were differing periods of delays in providing a stage 2 response. This indicates that the landlord has not given due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual circumstances of the complaint, but simply applied a set level of compensation for its delays at stage 2. A relevant order has been made to the landlord in this matter.
Given the lengthy delay in the handling of the complaint at stage 2, and the need for the resident to contact this Service there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which was not put right by its offer of compensation.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation which is proportionate to its complaint handling failings in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to lease out a bin storage area on the estate without consultation.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s decision not to reduce the rent charged to residents following the leasing of the bin storage area is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about provision of and accessibility to bins on the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The letting of the unused bin store was undertaken in line with the landlord’s own procedures and guidance to generate additional income from such unused assets to be used to support its wider housing management function.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered consultation with residents, but it acted on the expert advice it was given in not doing so.
The resident’s concerns around the accessibility of and provision of bins and bin storage were only raised within the later stages of her complaint. The landlord did however appropriately address these within its complaint response.
The landlord has taken steps to meet with and work with residents to agree a way forward to provide improvements to both the bin storage and cycle storage across the estate. These steps could have been taken at an earlier stage in the complaint process as a means of finding a resolution to the complaint. In doing so this may have removed the need for the resident to escalate her complaint through each stage of the landlord’s process or indeed bring her complaint to this Service.
The complaint was significantly delayed at stage two of the landlord’s process. No regular communication with the resident was initiated by the landlord, and it did not provide any timescales for its complaint response.
The delay in providing a response extended beyond the resident’s contact with this Service. The time taken to provide the formal response was not reasonable in these circumstances.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £300 compensation, comprising:
  1. £250 in recognition of the severe delay in responding to the resident at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure and the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing this response with the support of this Service.
  2. £50 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue her complaint and highlight to the need for improvements to bin and bike storage facilities on her estate.
  3. The landlord’s offer of £75 compensation should be deducted from the above total, if already paid.
2. Provide confirmation to this Service that this payment has been made.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord should:
1. Review the complaint handling failures and confirm to this Service whether action has already been taken to ensure that these failings are not repeated, and;
2. If not, confirm to this Service what further action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again. This may include training on the Code.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its position regarding consultation with residents, as a means through which to foster good landlord tenant relations, when considering the future of unused facilities within the boundaries of its estates, particularly where these previously provided a service to residents.