Adur District Council (202407076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407076

Adur District Council

30 July 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Overloaded bins and fly tipping.
   2. Items left in the communal hallway.
   3. A mailbox attached to a communal wall.
   4. A video doorbell and CCTV in a communal area.
   5. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started on 25 May 2009.
3. The resident first reported their concerns to the landlord on 11 December 2023. He raised the matter as a complaint, and complained about overloaded bins, waste left in the communal garden, items left in the communal area, a mailbox attached to a communal wall, and CCTV including a video doorbell. However, the landlord decided to deal with the issues outside of its complaint process.
4. The landlord told the resident on 17 June 2024 that it would arrange a date for the items in the hallway to be removed. It also confirmed it sent the neighbour responsible a TORT notice to remove the items.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2024. It apologised for the delay responding. It said the council’s fire safety officer confirmed the external mailbox had been approved, and all other items had been removed from the communal area.
6. The resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 10 December 2024. He said it had not addressed his concerns as the mailbox was still in the way causing a hazard and the video doorbell should not be allowed.
7. The landlord issued its final response on 24 December 2024. It reiterated the fire safety officer confirmed the mailbox was fire-rated and did not cause any obstruction. It said it allowed residents to install video doorbells, and it could remain in place. It also said it would instruct the relevant officer to ensure any other items are removed from the communal area.
8. When the resident initially contacted the Ombudsman, he had not yet received either the stage 1 or 2 response from the landlord. He wanted the landlord to respond to him, remove all items from the communal area including a mailbox, remove video doorbells, remove any fly tipped items in the garden and take action against residents for overusing the bin facilities.

Assessment and findings

Overloaded bins and fly tipping

9. In the section of the Conditions of Tenancy document for flats and maisonettes it says “residents must not dump or leave rubbish, litter, or other items on any common way either inside or outside the building. All communal areas both inside and outside the building must be kept clean”.
10. The resident complained on 11 December 2023 that the bins were overflowing in the communal bin store, and that waste had been left in the communal garden. The first evidence of any response from the landlord was when it emailed the resident on 17 June 2024 and told him it would arrange an appointment with waste services.
11. The landlord attended the property with its waste services on 26 June 2024. The time taken of over 6 months from the resident’s first report to the landlord attending the property was inappropriate. However, the landlord recorded it did not see any fly tipped items while there. It did not mention the overflowing bins in the communal bin store.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2024 and said the fly tipped items were still at the side of the building in the communal garden. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took any further actions regarding the overloaded bins and fly tipping after this date. We have also seen no evidence it communicated with the resident about this matter since. It also did not address the matter in either of its complaint responses. It is therefore unclear whether the issue of fly tipped items and overloaded bins remains or if they were resolved.
13. In summary, the evidence provided to this service does not demonstrate the landlord took timely action in response to the resident’s reports. It took over 6 months for the landlord to take any action. In addition, when the landlord did take action by attending the property, its records do not show that it took any action regarding the overloaded bins. Its records also show it did not see any fly tipped items, but the resident subsequently stated they were still there. This suggests the landlord did not take the appropriate action to deal with the matter.
14. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £75 compensation. This considers the failings mentioned above and is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

Items left in the communal hallway

15. When the resident first reported items had been left in the communal hallway on 11 December 2023, the landlord did not take any action or provide a response, which is not appropriate.
16. Although we have seen no evidence, the landlord has told us it contacted the neighbour responsible on 30 April 2024 and asked them to remove the items from the hallway. The time taken of over 4 months from the resident’s first report to contacting the responsible neighbour was inappropriate.
17. Following notification that the neighbour had not removed the items, the landlord attended the property on 6 June 2024. It placed stickers on all items to be removed and arranged for waste services to attend on 26 June 2024.
18. When the landlord attended with its waste services on 26 June 2024 it recorded that all the previously stickered items had already been removed from the hallway.
19. In its stage 1 response of 4 December 2024 the landlord confirmed all items outside the neighbour’s property had been removed. However, it did not offer an apology or compensation to acknowledge the delays in dealing with the matter.
20. In its final complaint response of 24 December 2024 the landlord said all the personal items in the hallway must be removed. It said it would instruct the relevant officer to have them removed. It is unclear whether the landlord was looking at historical photographs of the items, as they had already confirmed they had been removed, or if new items had appeared. This demonstrates poor record keeping and communication. The landlord again did not offer an apology or compensation to acknowledge the delays in dealing with the matter.
21. In summary, the landlord did not take timely action in response to the resident’s reports. It took over 4 months before acting on the reports, and a further 2 months to attend the property. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation. This considers the failings mentioned above and is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

A mailbox attached to a communal wall

22. When the resident first reported concerns about a mailbox attached to a communal wall on 11 December 2023, the landlord did not take any action or provide a response, which is not appropriate.
23. Following the landlord attending the property on 26 June 2024 for other matters, the resident emailed it on 7 July 2024 and queried why the mailbox was still there. The landlord replied the next day and said a fire safety officer had assessed the mailbox, and it gave permission for it to remain. It is unclear when the assessment took place or when the landlord gave permission.
24. In its stage 1 response of 4 December 2024 the landlord reiterated it had approved and given permission for the mailbox to remain following assessment by a fire safety officer. However, it did not offer an apology or compensation to acknowledge the delays in dealing with and responding to the matter.
25. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint on 10 December 2024 he said the mailbox was in the way and caused a hazard.
26. In its final complaint response of 24 December 2024 the landlord confirmed its fire safety officer inspected the mailbox and confirmed it was fire rated. It also said the size and location of the mailbox did not cause any obstruction. The landlord again did not offer an apology or compensation to acknowledge the delays in dealing with the matter.
27. In summary, the landlord did not take timely action in response to the resident’s reports. It took almost 7 months for the landlord to tell him they had assessed the mailbox and given permission for it to remain. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation. This considers the failings mentioned above and is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

A video doorbell and CCTV in a communal area

28. The landlord does not have a policy on CCTV or video doorbells. It has told this Service it is currently looking to develop one, but as things stand, residents need to ask for permission to install a video doorbell.
29. Similarly to the issue with the mailbox, the landlord did not respond to the resident about the CCTV or video doorbell until its email of 8 July 2024. The delay of almost 7 months was inappropriate. In its email of 8 July 2024, the landlord said it had given permission for the neighbour to install a video doorbell, but CCTV units were not allowed. However, it is unclear when permission for the doorbell was requested and when it was given.
30. The landlord has told this service the resident complained to it on 9 September 2024 that the video doorbell compromised the fire door. It says it responded the next day reiterating the neighbour had permission for the doorbell and it was only stuck on the fire door, not drilled into it.
31. In its stage 1 complaint response of 4 December 2024 the landlord did not refer to the issue of the video doorbell at all, which was not appropriate.
32. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint on 10 December 2024 he said the video doorbell was a form of CCTV so it should not be allowed.
33. In its final complaint response of 24 December 2024 the landlord confirmed it did not allow fixed cameras in communal areas, but did allow video doorbells. It again confirmed the neighbour was permitted to keep the video doorbell in place. The landlord again did not offer an apology or compensation to acknowledge the delays in dealing with the matter.
34. In summary, the landlord did not take timely action in response to the resident’s reports. It took almost 7 months for the landlord to tell him they had given permission for the video doorbell. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation. This considers the failings mentioned above and is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

The associated complaint

35. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
36. When the resident first raised a complaint on 11 December 2023, the landlord did not acknowledge it as a complaint but replied the next day and said it would deal with the issues outside of the complaint process. This is not in line with the Code or the landlord’s own complaint policy.
37. The resident chased up a stage 1 response from the landlord twice on 25 January 2024. The landlord responded the same day and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint. This is significantly outside the 5 working day timescale to acknowledge a complaint.
38. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 January, 12 February and 20 February 2024 asking for a stage 1 response and when he could escalate matters. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these requests, which is not appropriate.
39. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 4 December 2024, almost 1 year since the resident raised the complaint. It also did not respond to all matters raised. Although it apologised for the delay providing a complaint response, it did not offer any redress to acknowledge the significant delay.
40. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 10 December 2024 there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the request. However, it provided its final complaint response on 24 December 2024 (10 working days later) which is in line with Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy.
41. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord delayed acknowledging the complaint and did not issue its stage 1 response for almost 1 year, for which it offered no redress. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
42. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failings resulting in maladministration that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Overloaded bins and fly tipping.
    2. Items left in the communal hallway.
    3. A mailbox attached to a communal wall.
    4. A video doorbell and CCTV in a communal area.
    5. The associated complaint.

Orders

44. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £525 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this case, comprised of:
       1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue relating to the overloaded bins and fly tipping.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue relating to items left in the communal hallway.
       3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue relating to a mailbox.
       4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue relating to CCTV and a video doorbell.
       5. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Review its processes for dealing with reports of overloaded bins and fly tipping and write to the resident and this Service with details on what actions it will take to minimise future occurrences.
    4. Issue a reminder to all staff about the provisions set out in its complaint handling policy, and the Code.
45. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.