London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202114451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114451

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 October 2022

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

1. The residents complaint is about the landlord’s handling of fly tipping on the estate and its decision to recharge residents for the removal of dumped rubbish.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2018.
3. During 2020, the resident had requested the landlord to install CCTV on the estate as he was experiencing issues with his neighbours. This was in regards to antisocial behaviour within the estate. The landlord proceeded to have CCTV installed on 19 January 2021.
4. The landlord issued is service charge for the financial year 202/2021, however this incurred additional costs. Consequently on 5 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint disputing the costs incurred by neighbours and non-residents fly tipping. He was seeking a refund for charges relating to bulk items. 
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 May 2021. It explained that where local authority collections will not remove bulky or dumped items; removal is carried out by its contractors at a cost which is charged back to the relevant scheme. It explained that if it is able to identify where the dumping is coming from and there is enough evidence to carry the issue forward, the relevant party will be recharged for the clearance carried out.
6. On the following day, as the resident did not agree with this he requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident expressed he was not responsible for any other persons bulk waste removal, and resident’s that dump bulk items should be liable for their own costs.
7. He also stated that members of the public should not be allowed to dump their rubbish. He felt that the landlord had failed to ensure measures were in place to prevent such activity.
8. During June 2021 a further report about bulk rubbish being stored in front of the residents neighbours property was made. The landlord has stated that items left in the external communal area had been marked for removal and would check if the items were removed. On inspection this had been removed. Following this the landlord sent a letter to residents about the sorting and removing of bulk unwanted items.
9. In June the resident had chased the landlord for its stage two response as it had elapsed its 20 working days since he escalated his complaint. Following this in July the resident raised a complaint about the delay in the landlord stage 2 response. He was unhappy that he had chased several times and felt as though he was being ignored.
10. The resident’s complaint was assigned to a caseworker on 6 July 2021. Following this the landlord responded to the resident on 13 July 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, but explained that it is not always possible to identify perpetrators and therefore costs have to be added as a communal charge as it is a benefit to the whole estate.
11. Following this, the landlord issued a stage 2 decision the following day. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint was about its policy regarding fly tipping and his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. It also acknowledged that the resident was seeking for a new policy for bulk refuse collection, and reimbursement for service charge regarding bulk refuse collections.
12. The landlord explained that as a freeholder or land owner it is responsible for the ongoing management and maintenance of the estate or block. Part of this responsibility includes the clearance of any fly tipped items. The landlord explained that these cost form part of its service charges.
13. The landlord acknowledged it was delayed in responding to the resident, and as a result he had to chase for a response. It offered the resident £90 compensation. This entailed £50 for time and effort, and £40 for delay in its stage 2 response.
14. The resident accepted the compensation but stated that he disagreed with the conclusion regarding the policy and service charge and would be seeking to progress his complaint.
15. Since the complaint has been raised, there have been further reports of fly tipping by the resident. During October 2021, the resident informed the landlord of bulk waste being dumped by a resident and a non-resident.
16. As a resolution the resident is seeking the following:
    1. All monies charged by the landlord for bulk rubbish to be repaid to residents.
    2. The landlord to install adequate CCTV to cover the estate to prevent fly tipping and to aid with investigations of such at their own cost.
    3. The landlord to change their policy and to take financial responsibility for removal and not to pass these charges onto the resident.

Assessment and findings

17. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on the level or reasonableness of service charges as this is not within our jurisdiction.  If a resident wishes to dispute the level of service charge which they are expected to pay, they can refer this to the first tier tribunal to review the reasonableness. The First Tier Tribunal can consider the level of service charges and issue a decision which is binding for the parties.
18. The Ombudsman can assess whether, when considering issues, the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s handling of fly tipping on the estate

19. The resident had expressed that he was unhappy with the landlords handling of fly tipping on the estate and their handling of his request to install CCTV.
20. As there has been repeat issues relating to fly tipping at the detriment of the resident, it is not considered unreasonable that he requested a preventative measure be put in place. That being said it is at the discretion of the landlord and therefore not obligatory.
21. Section 10.5 of the landlords bulk rubbish guidance states further preventative measure may include:
    1. Good Neighbour Agreements – where residents agree not to dump rubbish on the estate.
    2. Installing gates and bollards.
    3. Putting up signage – to remind residents that dumping rubbish is prohibited and that legal action will be taken.
    4. Installing new lighting – to improve natural surveillance and make areas less prone to rubbish dumping.
    5. Installing CCTV-  to assist in the prevention, investigation and detection of rubbish dumping.
22. The evidence shows that the landlord has previously attempted to put measures in place when managing issues on the state. In particular it installed CCTV on 19 January 2021.The landlord has also written to its residents to remind them of the rules in regard to fly tipping. However instances of individuals leaving bulk waste has occurred after this date.
23. The evidence shows during June 2021 when a further report of bulk waste had been made to the landlord, it arranged to have the items removed.  It then proceeded to send a letter to the block regarding storing and disposing of unwanted items and not leaving them in communal areas.
24. The resident has expressed he is seeking the landlord to place CCTV in the affected areas to catch fly-tippers. He also believes the landlord should take responsibility financially for dealing with the issue instead of relying on the residents. However it is important to note should the landlord consider installing CCTV, as this is considered an improvement for the estate, it is likely this would incur as a cost under resident’s service charge.
25. This service understands the residents frustration and how such matters can be difficult for landlords to manage. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has been proactive in attempting to resolve the issue so far. However as the matter has reoccurred after the reported incidents, in order to improve this matter further and prevent such issues in the future this service is recommending the landlord revisit further measures to put in place, in an effort to prevent fly tipping.
26. This service understands that the resident had informed the landlord of the perpetrators for the rubbish, and felt as though the bill should be redirected to them. It does not appear that the landlord was provided with enough evidence proving this claim. As per the landlord’s stage one response, where there is enough evidence to carry the issue forward, the relevant party may be recharged for the clearance carried out. In the absence of this evidence, however, this Service cannot see that the landlord would have redirected the cost.
27. Section 11.1 of the landlords bulk rubbish guidance states that a warning letter should be sent out for all reported incidents where an alleged perpetrator is identified. This service has not seen any evidence to show if any further actions have been made against residents. However without evidence to show who is responsible, this service understands it would be difficult for the landlord to hold the perpetrator accountable.
28. As a result of bulk rubbish being dumped, residents of the block incurred this as a service charge for the financial year 2020/21.
29. Whilst this service understands the resident’s frustration in being charged for other individual’s bulk waste on the block. The landlords policies states that it is able to charge residents a service charge to maintain the building and estate. Therefore the landlord acted in accordance with its terms when charging residents for the bulk waste, and therefore this is not considered a service failing by the landlord. 
30. This service understands that the resident wishes for the landlord to change its policy in regards to how bulk waste is charged to residents. However it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to order the landlord to change its policy or waive the charges incurred which have been applied in line with its guidelines.
31. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling, and can see there was service failings by the landlord which caused further stress to the resident. The landlord acknowledged this and awarded the resident £50 for time and effort and a further £40 for the delays caused when responding to the residents complaint. This service understands at the time the resident had accepted the offer of compensations in regards to the delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord were proactive to consider its compensation policy, as the amount offered is in line with its guidelines, this service deems the level of compensation to be reasonable.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of fly tipping on the estate, and its decision to recharge residents for the removal of dumped rubbish.

Reasons

33. The landlord has been proactive in putting measures in place in an effort to tackle fly tipping. The charge incurred as a result of bulk rubbish was applied correctly to the residents account and in line with the landlord guidelines. 

Recommendations

34. The landlord to consider putting additional prevention measures in place such as CCTV within the next 3 months. Should these incur costs to the resident, the landlord to consult all residents and inform them of the available options.
35. The landlord to send to arrange good neighbour agreements with all residents of the block within the next 3 months. The landlord to ensure all residents are fully aware of the implications should they participate in fly tipping.