Kingston upon Thames Council (202000973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000973

Kingston upon Thames Council

11 March 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of items being left in the communal area.

Background and summary of events

On 24 June 2019 the resident contacted the landlord about items being left in the communal hallway.
On 3 July 2019, the landlord wrote to a neighbour of the resident about leaving items in the communal hallway, outside of her front door and asked her not to do this in accordance with the terms of the lease, as well as for health and safety and aesthetic reasons.
Three months later, on 24 October 2019, the resident again reported items being left in the communal hallway.
In response, on 28 October 2019, the landlord wrote again to the neighbour in question about items being left in the communal hallway.
On 7 December 2019 and again on 10 January 2020, the resident reported items being left in the communal area again.
Around 27 February 2020, the landlord sent a letter to all residents about not leaving items in the communal areas.
On 9 March 2020, an estate inspection took place and no items were found in communal areas.
On 13 April 2020 the resident reported that boxes were left in the communal area outside a neighbouring property and provided a photograph of this, although when the landlord attended, the items had been removed.
On 27 April 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to make a further report of items being left in the communal area and again, none were there when inspected. On the same date the landlord again communicated to all residents not to leave items in the hallway.
The following day, on 28 April 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied with what she believed was the landlord’s inaction in response to her notifications of items being left in the communal hallway. To her email, the resident attached a photograph of a pot of paint that she said her neighbour had left outside their front door for a week. The resident requested that the landlord write to her neighbour about the issue.
On 30 April 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised that although it was endeavouring to respond within its usual target timeframes, there may be delay due to the pandemic crisis.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the neighbour in question for a third time.
On 8 and 14 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord yet again about her neighbour leaving items outside of her front door. She stated that she had sent the landlord three photographs that week evidencing items being left and “about 50” photographs in total over the years. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact and said it would be included as part of her complaint.
On 20 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the neighbour in question, about leaving items outside of her front door.
On the same date the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint, finding its actions were “consistent and appropriate” for the issues raised, adding that this conclusion was arrived at including the recent reports made during the national lockdown and the associated reduced visits. The landlord advised it had written to residents in March and April 2020 with regards to the issue and that appropriate action was taken in respect of specific individuals, although it could not detail these for privacy reasons.
On 21 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s inaction in respect of the matter and said that the issue had been ongoing for “five years”.
On 23 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again about items being left.
On 28 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord stating that her neighbour had been leaving rubbish outside of her property for “seven years” and attached a photograph she said she had sent to the landlord reporting this in 2014. The resident also described incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by her neighbour towards her.
On the same date the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised it aimed to provide a response within 15 working days and if this was not possible it would contact her to let her know.
On 17 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that there would be some delay in responding to her complaint due to the pandemic.
On 24 June 2020 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. The landlord did not include the information provided by the resident on 28 May 2020 in its response, explaining that this was because it was not part of the stage one complaint. The complaint was upheld in terms of the landlord finding that it had given the resident a general overview of the actions it had taken but did not communicate other more specific actions. As a way forward, the landlord suggested mediation between the resident and the particular neighbour in question.

Assessment and findings

The landlord acknowledges in the documentation provided to this investigation, that items should not be left in the communal hallway and it acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s reports by twice writing to all residents about the issue, as well as speaking with one neighbour in particular, having previously written to her three times. It was also appropriate that it twice attended specifically to inspect, following reports made and carried out an estate inspection to assess the situation.
Despite the landlord’s actions, however, the issue continued, which lead to increasing frustration on the part of the resident, leaving her feeling unheard and as though the landlord was not doing enough or indeed, taking the matter seriously.
Although the photographs provided by the resident showed items directly outside of neighbouring front doors and not strewn across the landlord or creating a trip hazard, the landlord was nonetheless required to take steps to prevent items being left, once reported. Despite the issue being on the less serious end of the scale, the landlord was, however, obliged to seek to resolve it.
While it is the case that the landlord did take the appropriate steps as described, having been made aware that the issue continued nonetheless, it did not step up its response accordingly, instead repeating the same steps it previously took, which had not worked.
The Ombudsman wishes to make clear to the resident, that despite these findings, the landlord would not ordinarily be expected to take tenancy action against an individual leaving some items outside of their own front door; tenancy action in term of eviction proceedings, for example, are reserved only for the most serious of instances and would be a disproportionate response.
Further, it is not unreasonable for items to be left outside of residents’ own front doors for a brief amount of time, before they are taken in, so long as they are not causing a trip hazard; for instance, with contactless deliveries during the pandemic, items are often left on doorsteps for a short period.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations in this way; it did not explain to the resident in its communications or in its complaints responses what it could and would do and not do and why.
The landlord also missed an opportunity to demonstrate its understanding of the resident’s frustration at the situation and convey empathy in this regard, which may have been more conducive to facilitating a more positive landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process whereby it aims to provide a response within 15 working days at both stages. The landlord responded to the complaint in a reasonable period of time at stages one and two of its complaints procedure. The landlord sent its stage one response one day outside of its target timeframe, which was sent at the start of the global pandemic and national crisis, which it communicated to the resident in advance, may impact the time it would take to respond.
At stage two, the landlord’s response, while delayed, was again communicated in advance and the reason explained as to why this was the case. Sometimes complaints do take longer to investigate and respond to and it is reasonable for the landlord to take this time where it is deemed appropriate or is required, such as in circumstances of the pandemic which impacted organisations’ ways of working.
The landlord’s upholding of the complaint at stage two was not in respect of the substantive issue but rather, its response at stage one which it did not believe was detailed enough. There is no indication of why the response at stage one was lacking in detail or what learning and how, the landlord has taken from this. Despite the landlord identifying the lack of detail at stage one, it did not provide much further detail at stage nor and did not use this as an opportunity to discuss with the resident the actions it could or would take – or not – which may have assisted with containing the issue and effectively managing expectations.
A landlord’s offer of mediation is reasonable where there is a neighbour dispute, however, it is not clear as to the extent of this and its suitability and it did not explain with its offer, how this might be facilitated and what the resident could expect and any potential gains from engaging with this. No information has been provided to this Service as to whether mediation went ahead.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not do enough to seek to resolve matters, being aware that despite its actions, the issue continued. It also failed to discuss the issues with the resident, to seek to better understand her concern and to demonstrate its understanding and empathy, as well as to clearly set out what it would do and when and to manage her expectations. This opportunity was also missed in its response to the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £50 compensation for the service failures found;
2. offer to speak with the resident to discuss the issues and her concerns and to identify, where they are outstanding, what steps it will take and by when, to seek to resolve them.