Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202001603)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001603

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

20 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the issues with rubbish disposal on the estate.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a one bedroom flat within a block situated on an estate.
The landlord is the freeholder and is responsible for the maintenance of the communal external areas. Under the terms of the lease, the resident has the right to dispose of refuse in the bins located in the bin store. The landlord provides the estate with the bins, which are collected by the local authority on a weekly basis.
In 2019, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord concerning issues with the rubbish disposal on the estate. The landlord acknowledged that this was an ongoing issue that it needed to investigate and take action to address.
As part of the resolution to the complaint, the landlord agreed to look into increasing the size of the bin store area by redesigning the bin store. It obtained a quotation for this work in March 2019, however, did not proceed with the work at that time.

Summary of events

On 1 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked what plans it had in place for managing the rubbish on the estate during the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown, which started in March 2020. The resident highlighted that there was a higher volume of rubbish as a result of the lockdown, and the bins were quickly overflowing after being emptied. In addition, they reported that there had been increased incidents of fly tipping recently, and items had been left around the bin store. The resident provided images of the bins and the dumped items and asked the landlord to ensure that it dealt with this.
On 27 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord following a conversation they had with it the week prior. They sent images of the bin store area and said they were unhappy with the state the area was left in following the rubbish collection on the same day. The resident asked the landlord to escalate their case and take action to improve the situation.
In response, the landlord confirmed during a conversation with the resident that a clearance order would be raised. It acknowledged that the issue was ongoing but there was limited action it could take in the short term, other than arranging clearance and litter picking as soon as possible. It agreed to speak with the local authority about the litter left behind following the refuse collection.
As well as this, it said that it could take action to address the issues in the longer term, and redesign the bin store, but this was expensive and not necessarily effective. Nevertheless, it agreed to consult all the leaseholders in the block about this. It confirmed that it had placed an order for new bins but advised that this could take some time. It advised that the new bins had a larger capacity and lids which it believed would stop rubbish overflowing and littering.
On 19 May 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to the issues with the rubbish disposal. They provided images of rubbish on the estate, which they said were taken that day. The resident asked the landlord to clarify its plan of action to address the issue. The landlord provided a response the same day confirming that it did have an action plan and would:
1. Change the bins.
2. Provide a quotation to leaseholders for the bins store redesign and allow them to decide if they wanted to go ahead with this.
3. Send a letter to all residents about the correct disposal of refuse and recycling.
4. Clear fly tipped items and the litter from the over spilled rubbish when this was reported. It acknowledged that it was an ongoing issue but said that clearance took place regularly.
5. Look into CCTV installation but it noted that this would be an additional cost to leaseholders. It advised that if CCTV was installed, residents would be required to report fly tipping so that it could check the footage. And, if it checked footage but could not get an identification, there was little action it could take. But, if it was a resident found to be fly tipping, it would recharge them.
6. Continue to address any issues raised with the maintenance of the estate as soon as possible.
On 3 June the landlord inspected the estate. It emailed the resident with the feedback from this, on 5 June 2020. It advised that it found fly tipping during the visit and confirmed that it had arranged a clearance order to be completed by 11 June 2020. It noted that the design and location of the bin store did not help with the fly tipping, and the lack of lids on the bins, made it easier for fly tipping and overspill especially, as they could be easily accessed by rodents. It said that it had tried to reorder lids for the existing bins, but they were no longer manufactured.
It advised that it was awaiting a meeting with the Council to see if it could fit new larger bins and agreed to provide an update when it had more information. It confirmed that it looked at redesigning the bin store in 2019, but the costs worked out to be approximately £500 per household, requiring a section 20 notice. It said that this had been placed on hold, but if the resident wanted to proceed with this, it would service a section 20 notice.
It advised it could get a quote for CCTV to deter fly tipping but reiterated that this would be a cost to leaseholders. It mentioned the possible use of dummy cameras and signs but said that these had previously been ineffective as deterrents when it had used this on other estates. It asked the resident for their thoughts on the options it presented.
The resident agreed with the plan to redesign the bin store as a way to address the issue. In addition, they advised that they believed the introduction of CCTV, even if it was a dummy camera, should be introduced.
Around 8 June 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a stage one complaint. Following this, it requested a quotation for the CCTV on 18 July 2020. In addition, it made internal queries about whether it could get funding from the improvement budget towards the redesign of the bin store, in order to reduce the cost to leaseholders.
It provided its stage one response on 22 June 2020 and said:
1. Its ground maintenance contractor was aware of the litter and tried to clear this during visits but the issue continued. It recognised this was exacerbated by the lack of lids on the bins. It confirmed that it had contacted the local authority to advise that it must ensure that it does not contribute to this by carelessly completing the refuse collection.
2. As the lids for the existing bins were no longer manufactured, it had asked the local authority whether it was possible to fit three new larger bins with lids. This was to help the capacity issue with the existing bins and the littering from the overspilling.
3. It was gauging resident’s opinions on the redesign of the bin store. It agreed to review the feedback it received and said it would update the residents in July 2020.
4. It was also gauging resident’s opinion on the installation of the CCTV and additional signage. It said that it would review the feedback it received and decide on the next steps.
5. That it had investigated a formal complaint regarding the issues in 2019 and should have tried to take action to address the issue, that year. It apologised for the impact the matter had caused the residents and said that it was working to ensure that progress was being made to try and address the fly tipping issue.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord received confirmation that it could get a contribution from the improvement budget towards the work to the bin store redesign. On 10 July 2020, it contacted the contractor who provided the quotation for the redesign of the bin store in March 2019 and queried whether it could do the work for the same price. The contractor advised on 16 July 2020 that it could, as long as nothing had changed since it provided the quote.
On 21 July 2020, the landlord received the quotation for the CCTV installation.
On 18 October 2020, the resident requested an escalation of their complaint. A copy of the resident’s escalation request has not been provided to this Service
On 30 October 2020, the landlord wrote to all residents on the estate regarding recent complaints it had received, including those regarding the rubbish disposal. It advised residents of the procedure to arrange the collection of bulk items that they could not take the local recycling and waste centre and advised residents how to report fly tipping. The landlord confirmed that it intended to carry out improvements to redesign the bin store, install cctv and provide new bins to the bin store serving the block. It advised that more information about the CCTV and redesign would be sent at a later date.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. It provided its final response at stage two, on 13 November 2020 and:
1. Confirmed that it had obtained a quotation for the CCTV.
2. Said that there were service charge implications in carrying out the work to redesign the bin store and the CCTV, and it was looking at the impact of this for leaseholders. It noted that this included getting second quotes and finalising the contribution from its improvement budget to offset some of the costs.
3. Said that it was working with the local authority regarding the bins and had hoped that a joint site visit would have taken place but due to the Covid 19 restrictions in place, it had been unable to do this.
4. Advised that it visit the estate the week before to assess what bins may be required and once it was clear when the bin store redesign would take place, it would place the order for the new bins. It advised that it was hoping for meeting with the local authority in December 2020, providing the Covid 19 restrictions had been lifted.
5. Said that its letter to residents dated 30 October 2020, provided an update on its actions. It confirmed that this was part of its agreed action from the stage one response and apologised for the delay in providing the update.
6. Said that it hoped to complete the redesign of the bin store and installation of the CCTV within four months and would send a further letter to residents the following month with an update on progress.
7. It apologised for the delay in taking the matters forward and agreed to ensure that the agreed actions were completed in a timely matter.
In January 2021, the landlord established that the quotations for the work to the bin store and installation of the CCTV amounted to £16,069.63. It made internal queries about whether the improvement budget could contribute towards half of this cost, and the remainder be recovered via the leaseholders. It did not receive a response.
On 21 January 2021, it sent letters to residents confirming its intentions to redesign the bin store area and instal CCTV. It advised that it was looking to subsidise approximately half of the costs of the work, but this was subject to the availability of the funds and approval. On 22 January 2021, it issued a Statutory Notice of Intention to the leaseholders for the works.
In August 2021, the resident contacted this Service regarding the complaint. They remained unhappy as the work to redesign the bin store and installation of CCTV had not been completed and they felt that the situation had not improved. The parties agreed to take part in our mediation process to try and resolve the complaint.
On 4 November 2021, landlord acknowledged that it had not fulfilled its agreement to complete the work in time frame it provided in its final response. It said that it was obtaining a second quote for the CCTV and was exploring how the work to redesign the bin store would be recharged to leaseholders. To resolve the complaint, the landlord proposed to commit to providing regular updates to the resident’s regarding the work. In addition, it offered the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused as a result of the delay in the completion of the work and the time they spent pursuing the matter. The resident rejected its offer and asked that the case be progressed to investigation.
This Service has been made aware that the CCTV was installed in March 2022. The landlord has informed that there is a delay in the completion of work to redesign the bin store and it has had to liaise with the local authority. It has obtained further quotes for this work and sent a Notice of Intention to leaseholders in August 2022.

Assessment and findings

The resident has indicated in their complaint that they have reported issues with the rubbish disposal for more than 10 years and submitted formal complaints to the landlord in 2014 and 2019.
The Ombudsman expects that complaints are brought to it within 12 months of completing the landlord’s complaints procedure. There is no evidence that either complaint raised in 2014 or 2019, was brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the landlord’s respective responses.
The information relating to the landlord’s response to the formal complaint in 2019 has been noted in this investigation for context however, the landlord’s historical responses to the matter will not be considered in this investigation. This assessment, however, will consider the landlord’s response to the issue from when the resident raised it in April 2020.
In accordance with the lease agreement, the resident has a right to dispose of dry refuse in the bins located in the bin store. The landlord, therefore, is responsible for ensuring that there are enough bins for all residents who use them.
The landlord became aware of the issue with the capacity of the bins store from as early as 2019 and looked to increase its size through a remodel. It obtained a quote for this work, in March 2019 but placed the work on hold at the time. As a result, it did not review this proposal again, until the resident reported the issue in April 2020.
In response to the resident’s report about the over spilling rubbish from the communal bins and fly tipping in April 2020, the landlord arranged a clearance of the fly tipped items and asked its grounds maintenance team to address the litter that was left as a result of the rubbish overflow.
The landlords process concerning fly tipping confirms that if the fly tipping is on its land, it is to arrange the collection of this by its appointed contractors. Therefore, its response in arranging the collection of the fly tipped items when it was reported was appropriate. Furthermore, as the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the communal areas, it was appropriate that it asked its ground maintenance to address this.
In addition, the landlord took the factors contributing to the litter into consideration and liaised with the local authority to remind it to collect the refuse with care so not to leave litter behind following the refuse collection.
As well as its reactive response to the fly tipping and the litter, the landlord put forward longer term resolutions to address the issue. It informed that it had ordered new bins but recognised that this could take some time to provide. In addition, it confirmed that a redesign of the bin store was possible and agreed to consult the leaseholders about the proposed redesign. This was necessary for it to do, given the cost implications of the work.
The landlord also proposed in May 2020, following the submission of the complaint, that it would look into the installation of the CCTV as another possible longer term resolution to the ongoing fly tipping issue.
However, despite its agreement to consult the leaseholders about the bin store redesign in April 2020 and, agreement to look into CCTV installation in May 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord did this at that time.
It took the landlord until July 2020, before it obtained the quotations for the bin store and the CCTV installation. In this time, it made internal enquiries about funding toward the works for the redesign of the bin store. This was required for it to consult the leaseholders about the potential cost implications to them. But there was a three month delay in it taking this action from when it agreed to consult the residents about on the redesign of the bin store, and a two month delay from when it said it would look into the possibility of installing the CCTV.
As part of its response to the complaint at stage one in June 2020, the landlord provided an update on the order of the new bins. It explained that it was consulting with the local authority about whether the new bins would fit in the existing bin store. This in itself was not an issue, however, this information conflicted with the information it had provided to the resident in April 2020, that it had already ordered the new bins.
It also agreed to provide an update within a month of the stage one response when it received the feedback from residents on the proposal to redesign the bin store and install CCTV. It sought quotations for the work and received confirmation that its improvement budget could contribute to those works, but it did not provide the resident with any update within the month of its stage one response as it committed to.
The landlord did not provide the update it agreed to provide in July 2020, until 30 October 2020. In the correspondence dated 30 October 2020 it confirmed that it had received a quotation for the CCTV and would send another letter to residents about this work.
This Service has not received a copy of the resident’s stage two complaint but from the information provided, we note that it was submitted on 18 October 2020.
In response to the stage two complaint on 2 November 2020, the landlord recognised that it did not provide the updates to the resident as it agreed to within a month of the stage one response and apologised for this. This was appropriate given it failed to do what it said it would.
It then agreed that going forward, it would ensure that the actions were completed in a timely manner. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to do so as up until the point it issued the stage two response, there had been delays in it seeking the quotes for works, consulting and providing residents with updates on the progress of the actions it agreed to take.
The landlord was aware that it required a second quotation for the work however, after receiving the quotes for the works in July 2020, it made no attempt to obtain second quotes before it issued its final response four months later. Moreover, it received confirmation that it could contribute to the work, via the improvement budget, in June 2020, shortly after it provided the stage one response but did not pursue clarification on how much this contribution would be approximately, even though it was in possession of at least one quotation for the works.
It informed the resident in its final response, that works would be completed within four months however, failed to deliver on this. Its next update following this was two months later in January 2021, when it sent the Notice of Intention and advised that it was looking to subside some of the cost of this work. Around the same time, it made further internal enquiries about how much of a contribution it could make toward the proposed work. It did not receive a response in that time and did not chase this up again until November 2021, ten months later.
There is no evidence that after it issued the Notice of Intention, it updated the residents about the delay or the reasons for the delay in completing the work.
During our mediation process, the landlord confirmed its commitment to deliver the work to the bin store and the installation of the CCTV. This Service notes that by the time the landlord agreed to take part in our mediation process, it was 12 months after the final response had been issued. By this time, it had not yet obtained the second quote for the CCTV work or, established how the work would be charged back to leaseholders.
We expect that landlord learn from complaints and improve their service delivery through those learnings. From this complaint, the landlord identified that it failed to progress the matter throughout its responses to the complaint. Despite this, there continued to be shortcomings in its delivery of the actions it agreed. It failed to consult the residents about the work within a reasonable timeframe of it agreeing to do so, did not pursue the relevant information, such as second quotations, so that it could progress with the work in a timely matter. In the meantime, it did not consistently keep the resident updated about the reasons for the delay or what action it was taking in the meantime to deliver the work. In its final response, it provided a timeframe that it expected to complete delays and did not meet this or make the resident aware that it was unable to do so.
As a result of the delays and lapse in communication regarding the actions it agreed to take to address the issue, the resident was caused frustration and spent a significant time pursuing the landlord for it to complete the work.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it can offer compensation in circumstances where there have been delays in providing its services. Its policy sets out that where there has been a failure of service and this has caused an impact on a resident to live well within their property or surrounding area, it could offer redress ranging from an apology to compensation up to £150. In instances where the resident has spent time and trouble in trying to resolve matters, it can also offer compensation.
During our mediation process, the landlord recognised the failure to deliver the works it agreed within the time frame it provided in its final response. It apologised to the resident and agreed to keep them updated on the progress of matter. This was appropriate.
The landlord also offered the resident £150 during our mediation process in recognition of the delays and the time they spent pursuing the matter. It was necessary that it considered and offered compensation but its offer was not proportionate for the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter up to that point.
There were delays in it taking action to deliver the agreed work whilst the complaint was ongoing. Eight months after it said it would complete the work, it did not and had failed to provide the resident with regular updates up to when it made the offer. By the time it considered compensation, it was approximately 17 months after it had advised the resident of its intention to redesign the bin store and 16 months after it proposed the installation of the CCTV. As a result of this delay, the resident continued to experience issues with the fly tipping and overspilling bins, causing them frustration. I find that the £150 reflects the delay the resident experienced however, not the efforts the resident had to make to get the matter resolved over such a significant period of time. An order of additional compensation, therefore, has been made below.
This Service has been made aware by the landlord that the work to remodel the bin store has been delayed and remains outstanding. It has advised that it has continued to send residents updates, informing them of the progress of the work and the next steps. The resident on the other hand, has indicated that they do not find the landlord’s updates on the matter to be satisfactory. This assessment is unable to investigate matters that occurred after the complaint was brought to this Service however, based on the recent information provided, a recommendation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the issues with the rubbish disposal on the estate.

Reasons

The landlord identified the delays in the progression of the matters in the response to the complaint. Despite this, it continued to delay in taking steps so that the works could go ahead. During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the landlord recognised the delays, apologised to the resident for the impact its delivery of service had, the time they spent pursuing the matter and it offered compensation. This was appropriate; however, I find that the offer it made was not reflective of the time the resident spent pursuing the matter up to the point of the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Orders

In recognition of the above finding, it is ordered that the landlord, within three weeks, pay the resident £300 inclusive of the £150 it offered during the Ombudsman’s mediation process.

Recommendations

In light of the resident’s concerns about the provision of updates on the outstanding work to the bin store, the landlord is to consider confirming to resident how it intends to keep the residents updated on this work until it has been completed.