Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202014644)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014644

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

28 June 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:
1. Decision to relocate the communal bins for the building to directly outside the resident’s property.
2. Associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per section 9.1 of the landlord’s fire safety management policy, it would carry out fire-risk assessments to identify the risks and take appropriate measures to minimise the risk to life and risk of damage to the property.
Section 2.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy confirms it would pay compensation or make amends when it fails to achieve its agreed standards. Section 2.2 of the same policy also confirms that, in some cases, practical action and an apology may be more appropriate.
As per the landlord’s complaints policy, it should acknowledge the resident’s complaint within three working days. It should also provide a full complaint response within 20 working days for both stage one and final-stage complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a flat, and is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

Prior to the below, the landlord had entered into consultation with the residents of the building regarding the communal bin store. The bin store was located indoors, with some residents complaining about poor ventilation and unpleasant odours. The landlord had planned to relocate the communal bins to outside the resident’s property.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, stating the following:
1. It was consulting with its residents regarding the relocation of the communal bins, following complaints from residents and refuse collectors.
2. It had discussed the issue of odour, with this currently being an issue as the communal bins were in an enclosed space. It noted that odour was not an issue where communal bins were out “in the open [air]”.
3. It confirmed that it had registered the resident’s objections to the proposal. It also confirmed that no decision had been made on the new location for the communal bins, which it said would provide the “greatest benefit to the highest number of residents”.
On 30 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, stating the following:
1. She felt that relocating the communal bins to outside her windows represented a threat to her health, and that her welfare had been disregarded.
2. She also raised concerns over the odour of the bins, particularly as the bin lids were often left open or overfilled.
3. She therefore requested the details of how to take her complaint to “the next level”.
On 7 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for her being left with the impression it had disregarded her welfare, and it reiterated that the matter was still under review. It confirmed it had passed her letter to the relevant member of staff, regarding her “desire to raise a complaint”.
On 7 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It reiterated that no decisions had been made on the new location of the communal bins, and it had also sought the view of the local authority on this issue, having been reported by “some residents”.
On 9 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to highlight that she had not received the details on how to “pursue this complaint at a higher level”, despite requesting this. She therefore requested that the landlord provide the requested information to escalate her complaint. She also requested that the landlord correspond by post, having asked it to remove her email address from its records previously.
On 19 October 2020, the landlord responded in writing to apologise for not removing her email address and enclosed a written copy of its emails from 7 October 2020 regarding the complaint.
On 21 October 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. She was disappointed that the landlord was still considering moving the communal bins to outside her windows, “despite the risk to [her] health and welfare”.
2. She raised concerns over fire safety, due to the risk of the bins being targeted by vandals if left outside, with the resident having seen bins set on fire in the area. She also raised concerns over the bins blocking the walkway around the building.
3. She felt that, despite the consultation, the landlord would make the decision and tell her afterwards.
The landlord’s records confirm that following a health and safety inspection on 3 November 2020:
1. It was assessed that the “bins need[ed] to be moved out of the bin store as soon as possible”.
2. Having considered both the car park and the area along the outside of the building – this being where the resident lives – it felt that the latter was “the best option”.
3. Although it had received objections to the proposal, it was informed that the bins had to be moved as a priority.
The landlord’s records confirm that it had considered relocating the communal bins to the car park; however, as this would involve additional cost, it would need to wait for the agreement of its budget before it could carry out this work. It therefore felt that relocating it to the side of the building was the best option.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord completed a complaint investigation report, which is summarised as follows:
1. It assessed that it should have communicated that the decision to move the communal bins to outside the resident’s property was for the short term and explained that a further review of the bin storage would take place in March 2021.
2. It also concluded that it should have explained the reasons for relocating the bin storage area.
On 25 November 2020, the landlord provided its stage-one complaint response to the resident. It explained that it had received a number of complaints from residents in respect to the communal bins, which led to the consultation with the residents. Since this time, it had been told to relocate the bin store to the side of the building by her property “for health and safety reasons”. Therefore, it did not uphold her complaint.
On 11 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to highlight she had not received a response to her request of 27 November 2020 to escalate her complaint.
On 19 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to express disappointment, having received a letter to confirm that it was going to relocate the communal bins to outside her property. This was despite the fact that she had yet to receive an acknowledgement to her request to escalate her complaint. She felt that the result of the consultation was “a foregone conclusion”.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It explained that it did not receive the resident’s letter, dated 27 November 2020, and having received the letter, it would provide a full written response within 20 working days.
On 20 January 2021, the landlord provided its final-stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for having moved the bins before notifying residents.
2. It explained that the changes were required to address a potential fire risk, and to address the concerns of a number of residents.
3. It informed the resident that, following consultation with the local authority, it had elected to relocate the communal bins to outside her windows until the end of March 2021, when the storage would be reviewed.
4. It apologised for not providing a full explanation in its stage-one complaint response and therefore upheld the resident’s complaint in this regard.
On 19 April 2021, the landlord wrote to its residents to confirm that it had further consulted with the local authority to review the location of the communal bins for the building. Its proposal was to create a new bin-storage area in the car park and it requested comments from its residents prior to making a final decision in May 2021.
The Ombudsman has not been given details of the landlord’s decision, which was scheduled for May 2021.

Assessment and findings

Decision to relocate the communal bins to directly outside the resident’s property.

Following the complaints received from other residents, it was fair for the landlord to explore alternative locations for the communal bins. It did so in consultation with its residents in September 2020.
As part of this process, the resident raised her concerns over the proposed new location, which was outside her windows and the landlord acknowledged these concerns. During the consultation process, it had received further instruction, which meant that it needed to prioritise the relocation of the bin-storage area. This is in accordance with the landlord’s fire safety policy, and was therefore reasonable action for it to take.
The landlord provided an explanation for the change in its stage-one complaint response; however, it did not explain to the resident that a further review of this decision would take place at the end of March 2021. This has been acknowledged by the landlord its final-stage complaint response, for which it apologised. An apology was adequate to address its failure to communicate the further review, which it had addressed by explaining its position fully to the resident in its final-stage complaint response.
It is understood that the resident was unhappy that the communal bins had been relocated by the landlord, despite her objections, and without prior notification of the change being made. The landlord has also apologised for this in its final-stage complaint response. The proposed changes had to be fast-tracked due to the fire-safety concerns. Therefore, its decision to implement a short-term change – this being up until its further review scheduled for the end of March 2021 – was reasonable to mitigate the associated fire-safety risks.
The landlord has also given a reasonable explanation for not locating the bins in the carpark in the first instance. It has said it could not arrange this before March 2021 due to the cost involved and the impact this would have on its annual budget. Social landlords have limited resources and they are obliged to manage those resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to defer moving the bins to the carpark until it could raise the finance needed for this and for it to move the bins to a temporary location in the meantime to reduce the risk of fire.
In summary, while it could have explained the temporary nature of its proposed changes to the resident, the landlord has evidenced that it conducted the consultation process in good faith. It had to move the communal bins as a priority due to fire – safety concerns. It took the opportunity of its full complaints process to address this shortcoming in providing more information to the resident on the further review scheduled for March 2021 and apologising for not doing so in its stage-one complaint response. This was adequate to address the detriment to the resident, and in line with its compensation policy.
In respect to the future location of the communal bins, the landlord had intended to relocate these to the car park. Following the complaint, the landlord has carried out further consultation with residents about this option. This evidences that the landlord has been fair and reasonable, and has considered the views of the residents. Relocating the bins to the carpark would resolve the resident’s complaint as the bins would no longer be outside her window.

Associated complaint handling.

Following the consultation around the proposed changes, and after the resident had raised her initial objections, the resident submitted her complaint on 30 September 2020. Despite this, the landlord did not provide its stage-one complaint response until 25 November 2020, some 40 working days after. This was not in accordance with the timescales given in its complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 23 December 2020. It provided its final-stage complaint response on 20 January 2021, which was in line with the complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord failed to provide its stage-one complaint response at the appropriate time; this caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. Although the landlord issued its final-stage complaint response in accordance with its policy, it did not address its failure to do so at stage one. The landlord should offer compensation to the resident in view of this.
As per this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £50 to £250 may be used where the impact of the service failure on the resident was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples could include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the complaint. In line with this guidance, the landlord should offer the resident £75 for errors in its complaints process. These errors did not affect the outcome of the complaint, but may have caused short term distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was waiting for a decision for longer than expected.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the relocation of the communal bins to directly outside the resident’s property, satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord should have communicated to the resident the temporary nature of the bin–storage relocation, it needed to relocate the communal bins as a priority due to fire–safety concerns. It could not move the bins to any other location at that time because of budget constraints. It apologised, and this was a reasonable response from the landlord to this miscommunication.
The landlord delayed the issue of its stage–one complaint response, resulting in the resident having to spend unnecessary extra time in progressing her complaint. The landlord should offer compensation in view of this, as set out below.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75, comprising of:
1. £25 for its failure to provide a timely stage one complaint response to the resident.
2. £50 for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursing her complaint.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above order.