City of Westminster Council (202334579)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that a neighbour was incorrectly leaving rubbish near the bin area. The resident had concerns the landlord had not investigated the issue properly. The resident said she suffers from anxiety, mental health issues and physical health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s disposal of refuse.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s disposal of refuse.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its fly tipping policy. It demonstrated it had taken her concerns seriously and took action based on the evidence it had been provided with. It acknowledged its communications could have been improved and offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings and which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
5. The landlord acknowledged it had made some failings within its complaint process by taking too long to reply to the resident. However, there were other parts of its process which were not right and it did not acknowledge these failings. The landlord failed to proactively keep the resident informed about its consideration of the complaint or to explain the reasons for the delays that had happened. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

6. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated that she has been experiencing issues with her neighbour for a number of years. We have seen evidence of allegations and counter-allegations from the resident and neighbour over a number of years. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised her concerns as a complaint at the time with the landlord. We have not seen evidence that the resident was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate any concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour before the circumstances which led to this complaint.
7. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the reports about the neighbour’s disposal of refuse, and the reasonableness of its response. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour was responsible for incorrectly disposing of refuse. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord were in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord has provided evidence to us that it carries out monthly estate inspections. This includes checking the area near the bins and providing photos of the area. Its inspection on 8 September 2023 did not identify any issues.
9. The landlord has a fly tipping policy. This says as follows:
   1. Fly tipped waste is defined as “any items or group of items dumped in the common parts of a block that cannot be stored safely in a defined location for collection […].”
   2. When fly tipping is found, the landlord will investigate whether the perpetrator can be identified. If so, the landlord will attempt to contact them within 24 hours.
   3. Repeat offenders will have enforcement action taken against them where appropriate.
10. Given the nature of the resident’s reports, it is appropriate for it to categorise them as instances of possible fly tipping. We have not been provided with evidence of the resident’s first report, however, the landlord visited the resident on 15 August 2023 to discuss her concerns.
11. Following this visit, the landlord completed a risk assessment. The landlord’s fly-tipping policy does not require it to conduct a risk assessment when it receives such reports. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to do so given the resident’s belief that it was a particular neighbour responsible. It is common practice across the housing sector for landlord’s to use risk assessments in disputes between parties known to each other. By doing a risk assessment, this enabled the landlord to consider any risk of escalating behaviour in light of the history between the parties. This was evidence of the landlord taking a fair and measured approach to its response.
12. Within its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s initial reports of the issue. It also acknowledged that it had not made it clear to the resident that its ASB team would not class her reports as ASB. The landlord explained a staff member had seen video footage which showed residents not correctly disposing of their rubbish. It outlined the action it had taken in response to the video footage, including contacting the neighbour involved. It committed to monitor the situation, install signs in the area and contact the resident to view more of her footage.
13. The actions taken by the landlord to contact the neighbour identified as incorrectly disposing their rubbish was in line with its fly tipping policy. It also made reasonable commitments to address the situation going forward if it continued. It identified aspects where it could have improved its communication and offered £25 compensation for this.
14. Following the resident’s escalation request from 7 November 2023,the landlord carried out a further risk assessment. It also carried out further estate inspections in November and December 2023. These identified no issues with waste disposal.
15. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns the landlord met with her again on 14 December 2023. It noted in an internal email that there was one video which showed rubbish with her neighbour’s name and address on. Other videos dated back a number of years.
16. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it would put up signs about the disposal of waste. This is something it had committed to do as part of its stage 1 response which it provided 2 months prior. The landlord did not provide a timeframe to put up signs or explain why it had not already taken this action as part of its response. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that it was doing all it reasonably could to resolve the situation.
17. The landlord committed to write to all residents about inappropriate waste disposal. It said it would continue to speak to the neighbour and would advise them it could take further action if the behaviour continued. This was a reasonable and proportionate course of action for the landlord to take given it had evidence of only one occasion where the rubbish could be linked to the neighbour.
18. It apologised to the resident where there had been confusion over what videos or pictures on the resident’s phone had been viewed as part of its investigation. To acknowledge the impact of its poor communication it offered an additional £100 compensation.
19. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
20. The landlord considered the overall effect of its communication failures on the resident. It offered a total of £125 compensation for the substantive matter. This amount was within a range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. As such, this was an appropriate level of compensation, which was proportionate to the failings in this case.
21. In making our assessment we have identified:
    1. The landlord acknowledged it had taken too long to respond to the resident’s report.
    2. It acknowledged confusion in its communication about whether it had viewed photo or video evidence from the resident.
    3. It acted appropriately in contacting parties given the evidence available and was in line with its fly-tipping policy.
    4. It committed to monitor the situation going forward and explained the action it would take to warn the neighbour should more evidence be provided.
    5. It carried out regular estate inspections which did not identify any issues.
22. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s disposal of refuse. This means the landlord made an offer to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy which was in place at the time says that it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. At stage 1, it aims to respond in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.
24. The resident made a complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and responded at stage 1 on 30 October 2023. This was 23 working days, and outside of its published expected response time. The landlord acknowledged this delay within its response and offered £20 compensation. This was in line with its policy on providing compensation for late correspondence.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the following day. It responded at stage 2 on 22 December 2023. This was a time period of 34 working days, 14 working days over its published response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered an additional £20 compensation. This brought its total offer of compensation for its complaint handling to £40.
26. The evidence shows a total delay 27 working days in the process. This caused frustration to the resident and also impacted on her ability to bring her complaint to us sooner. Although the compensation went some way to put right the landlord’s failings, its total offer was not sufficient when the totality of the delay is considered. In addition, we have not seen any evidence the landlord proactively kept he resident updated about the progress of the complaint or the reasons for the delays. It also failed to explain how it would prevent such delays in the future or any learning it had taken from its handling of the resident’s complaint. As such, these failures combined lead to the determination of service failure.
27. To acknowledge the effect of the complaint handling failures on the resident we have ordered an additional £60 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £100. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Although the landlord did not provide us with the resident’s initial report outlining her concerns about the rubbish, this alone is not enough to quantify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping. We have seen detailed records of the estate inspections both before, during and after this complaint. We have also seen that the landlord appropriately shared information between its housing and ASB teams in respect of this matter.

Communication

29. The landlord did not demonstrate proactive communication with the resident about the substantive matter or the delays in responding to her complaints. The landlord acknowledged these failures in respect of the substantive matter and orders relating ti its complaint handling have been made as part of putting things right.