Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Orwell Housing Association Limited (202120347)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120347

Orwell Housing Association Limited

8 February 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s decision to include the cost of decontaminating bins within the service charge;
    2. The landlord not providing individual bins to residents; and
    3. The landlord’s refusal to install CCTV.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a one-bedroom flat within a block of flats for which the landlord is the freeholder. The residents in the block of flats have a communal recycling bin which is emptied by the local council as part of its refuse collection service.
  2. In 2021, the landlord arranged for the local council to decontaminate the communal recycling bin on two occasions. That was due to the council’s refusal to collect the bin as items other than recycling had been placed into it. The council charged the landlord £45 plus VAT for each decontamination.
  3. The landlord advised the residents in the flats that the cost of the decontamination would be recovered via their service charge.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about its decision to pass on these costs to residents. He considered that he was being financially penalised due to the behaviour of others. The resident asked if he could have his own recycling bin, and also suggested that the landlord install CCTV cameras in the bin area, to find out who had caused the contamination.
  5. On 22 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said it had contacted the council to request individual recycling bins for each flat, but this decision would be up to the council. It also said it had ordered a lockable lid for the communal recycling bin, and it was waiting for the council to fit this. Finally, the landlord advised that it could not install CCTV cameras without a budget and consultation with residents, as there would be a service cost to this. It said it hoped the situation would be resolved without CCTV.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process. He did not consider that the lockable lid would prevent the issue reoccurring and felt that the council should have been contacted earlier about individual bins. He also said that other residents that he had spoken to had agreed with installing CCTV.
  7. On 10 November 2021 the landlord issued its final response. It said that costs relating to refuse collection and contamination could be recovered through the service charge, and that this was in line with national guidance. Whilst it accepted this may not seem fair to the resident, it said this was the only way the cost could be recovered as the landlord did not know who was responsible for the issue. The landlord repeated that it had asked the council if the residents could have individual recycling bins, and it was still awaiting a response. The landlord again said it would consider installing CCTV if there continued to be issues with bin contamination.

Assessment and findings

The service charge

  1. The Ombudsman does not normally formally investigate issues relating to the level of a service charge, or the increase in a service charge, as such matters are considered more appropriately dealt with by the first tier tribunal. However, in this instance, the issue relates to whether or not it was appropriate for the landlord to pass on costs that it incurred on to residents of the building. In this respect, the Ombudsman is able to consider the landlord’s communication and whether, in all the circumstances, it reasonably responded to the complaint raised.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the resident as liable to pay an annual service charge for communal services provided by the landlord. The tenancy agreement also confirms that, following consultation, the landlord can ‘introduce services, or add to, remove, reduce or vary the services provided’; and that it can ‘make minor changes to services without consultation’ where it considers the change to ‘be in the interests of better management’.
  3. In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord signposted the resident to the summary of services detailed in schedule one of the tenancy agreement, including the calculation of these charges. It confirmed that the tenancy agreement provides for an annual review of the service charge and said that the additional costs incurred from the council for the bin decontamination would be included in the following years service charge, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement. It explained that it had relied on guidance from the National Housing Federation in reaching this decision.
  4. Whilst the landlord did not explicitly refer to the relevant area of guidance that it relied upon, its response presents as reasonable. It is not disputed that these costs had been incurred and, as such, they could reasonably be attributed to the landlord’s service delivery provision within the communal areas at the building. It explained that it was unable to attribute the fault for the contaminated bins to individual residents and had therefore spread the costs between all those using the facilities.
  5. In all the circumstances, the landlord has responded fairly and reasonably to the issue. It has confirmed that the tenancy agreement permits costs such as those incurred to be recovered through the service charge. In the absence of clear evidence of who had caused the issue, it was then reasonable to re-charge these costs to all residents through an equal apportionment of the costs.

Individual bins

  1. The local council are responsible for refuse collection and the provision of new bins. It was therefore correct for the landlord to say that the decision over whether or not to provide individual bins was up to the council.
  2. The landlord made the resident aware that the council had previously refused to allow individual flats (in another block of flats) to have their own recycling bins rather than a communal bin, but it confirmed it would still make the request. That was reasonable, as the landlord managed the resident’s expectations around this, but it still took appropriate action by making the request, in case the council’s stance on the matter had changed.
  3. The landlord also took appropriate and proportionate action by ordering a lockable lid for the communal recycling bin. The resident had raised reasonable concerns about passers-by potentially causing the contamination by using the recycling bin. The lockable bin lid would address this issue. 
  4. Whilst the resident accepted that the lockable bin would have a positive benefit, he felt that residents would still be able to contaminate the bins again. This was a reasonable concern on his part; however, the landlord’s actions amounted to taking affirmative action to improve the situation for the residents and should be commended.

CCTV

  1. The landlord explained that installing CCTV would come at a cost, and it would need to work out the price and consult with all the affected residents about the matter before taking this decision. The landlord did not consider there was sufficient reason to take that action at present, but confirmed it would consider this further if bin contamination continued.
  2. The bin has been contaminated on two occasions, and so it is understandable why the resident is frustrated about the situation. However, the landlord has taken action by requesting the lockable bin lid, and so this may well resolve the issue (if the contamination was caused by passers-by), thereby avoiding the cost of CCTV. If it does not and further contamination occurs, the landlord has confirmed it will consider CCTV, which was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about it passing on costs through the service charge.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord not providing individual bins to residents.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s refusal to install CCTV.

Recommendations

  1. If bin contamination continues to occur after the recycling bin has a lockable lid fitted, the landlord should open discussions with the residents in the block about the possibility of installing CCTV.