Gateway Housing Association Limited (202112753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112753

Gateway Housing Association Limited

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. communal area requests (store cupboard, hedge and boundary wall);
2. reports of littering and fly-tipping.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the time of her complaint. She has since moved out of the property. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy describes this as day to day incidents that negatively affect people’s lives and gives an example of ASB as littering. It says it will consider a range of interventions to deter or prevent ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage process where stage one complaints are responded to within ten working days and stage two within 15 working days.

Summary of events

On 22 May 2020 the resident reported that passers-by were throwing rubbish over a wall into her garden and a communal pathway. She also said that a neighbour was fly-tipping and not disposing of their rubbish correctly. The landlord sent two responses; the first asked her to confirm the address of the neighbour and the second said it would be hard to stop passers by throwing rubbish but that the cleaner was on site each week and would clear any rubbish from the area. This Service has not seen but is aware that the resident responded with the address of the neighbour and reported a gap in some hedges. The landlord responded that letters would be sent out to all residents about the disposal of rubbish and fly-tipping, contact would be made with the neighbour and it would check the hedge to see if anything could be done about the gap. This Service has not been provided with evidence that these actions were completed.
On 6 June 2020 the resident asked for an update and reported fly-tipping by a specific neighbour and a gap in the hedge at the back of the property. She said this gap allowed other residents and their visitors to cut through her garden to access their properties. There resident chased a response on 18 June and 14 September 2020.
The landlord responded on 15 September 2020 that it would update her by 25 September 2020. On this date the landlord tried calling the resident and e-mailed her asking for contact to provide an update. The resident responded asking the landlord to send an e-mail update. There is no record that this was sent.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord confirmed that additional planting would be done to fill the gap in the hedge but this could not be done until March 2021. It had looked at whether railings could be fitted to the boundary wall to deter littering but this would not be possible due to planning permission but it would order and fit signs. Within the letter it made reference to a visit on 5 October and a follow up e-mail of 8 October 2020. This Service has seen no record of either of these.
In January 2021 the resident reported issues with littering. The landlord made enquiries with other residents who said that this was not caused by residents but by foxes and passers-by. The landlord updated the resident and confirmed that the caretaker would continue clearing this up.
On 10 January 2021 the resident reported that the gap in the hedge had not been filled and that people were jumping and throwing rubbish over a wall into the garden at the front of the property. The landlord responded the following day that she should continue working with the relevant departments regarding these issues.
In May 2021 the resident requested ongoing access to a communal cupboard for storage. The landlord refused this request stating that this cupboard was used by the cleaners.
In June 2021 the resident made five reports about littering and fly-tipping. In one of the reports she identified a specific neighbour doing this. The records show that the landlord responded to one of these reports that it had been passed to the housing and ASB officer to deal with, but there is no record of any further contact made or action taken. There is no record that the landlord responded to the other four reports made by the resident that month.
On 28 June 2021 the resident made a complaint, which said:
1. She had raised various issues with the landlord for two years with no response or action taken. She asked for a written response on each issue including what action the landlord would take to resolve them.
2. The landlord had agreed to fill the gap in the hedge in but this had still not been done.
3. A communal wall was “unacceptably low” and lead to ASB which had impacted on the safety of her property.
4. She had asked for access to a storage cupboard which had been rejected but the cleaner did not use anything from the cupboard.
5. Fly-tipping and littering were ongoing despite the resident speaking to other residents and reporting this to the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 19 July 2021, which said:
1. It had agreed for additional hedges to be planted but this had not happened due to staff absence and a new contractor. It would be applying for additional funding for this.
2. It had inspected the wall and confirmed there were no repair issues or defects. There was no specific height requirement for a boundary wall and due to it being a conservation area, this could not be altered in any way.
3. It confirmed on 5 May 2021 that the communal cupboard was used by its estate services team and could not be allocated to her for personal use. This Service has seen no record of this communication.
4. It confirmed on 7 July 2021 that a letter had been sent to all residents in the area about rubbish disposal.
5. The complaint was partially upheld because the hedge planting had not gone ahead as agreed.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 4 August 2021 and said:
1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response as it had failed to provide a timeline for her issues to be resolved.
2. She had asked for dates when the planting would be done to fill the gap in the hedge and wanted to know when this would happen.
3. She asked the landlord to confirm it had agreed to put in a planning request to increase the height of the wall. She reported that drug dealers were using the wall the previous week and rubbish had been thrown over again.
4. She wanted to understand why the cupboard could not be allocated to her as it was not used by the cleaner.
5. Letters (about fly-tipping and littering) had been sent in the past and she now had a mouse infestation in her house.
The resident chased a response from the landlord via this Service on 3 and 17 September 2021.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, which said:
1. Its stage one response had not given a timeline regarding the additional hedge planting. It had received a quote for this and confirmed that a visit to the resident would be carried out that day to discuss the work and confirm the timeline. This Service has seen no record of this visit or communication of the timeline given.
2. There had been no agreement to increase the height of the wall or submit a planning application. It had agreed to find out if this would be appropriate and the stage one response had given reasons why it was not.
3. It had told her the communal cupboard was used by its estate services team.
4. It would continue to respond to all reports of fly-tipping and would issue a general warning letter to residents if they were identified as causing this issue. Its estate services teams would raise matters with the housing team and provide evidence of who was doing this where possible.
5. The complaint was partially upheld as it should have provided specific dates and timeline in relation to the hedge planting. It apologised and confirmed this had been addressed.
In December 2021 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said:
1. The hedge issue had been going on for three years and was still unresolved.
2. The landlord had agreed to apply for planning permission to increase the height of the wall but was going back on this.
3. The landlord was not using the communal cupboard as they had said.
4. The landlord had done nothing to resolve the fly-tipping issue other than send out general letters, despite her reporting specific neighbours who were doing this.
In February 2022 there was an internal e-mail exchange by the landlord confirming the hedge planting would take place the following month or earlier if the plants were delivered before then. The landlord has confirmed this was completed in May 2022.
The landlord submitted a planning application to increase the height of the boundary wall in February 2022. This application was refused in May 2022 and the landlord informed the resident of this.
In recent contact with this Service the resident has said that she feels the landlord failed on communication, with a lack of responses and actions not being followed through. She found this frustrating and feels that she wasted time chasing things up in the hope that the issues would get resolved.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s communal area requests (store cupboard, hedge, and boundary wall)

Store cupboard

The resident requested access to a communal cupboard in May 2021 to use for personal storage. The landlord refused this request because its estate services team used the cupboard. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable. The landlord was under no obligation to allow the resident to make use of the communal cupboard, regardless of whether it was using the cupboard in the way it had said. It is also worth noting that landlords are required to ensure that communal areas, including cupboards, are not used to store any items that may pose a fire risk and limiting the access and use of cupboards in communal areas is an appropriate way to do this.

Hedge

From the evidence seen the resident first raised her concern about a gap in the hedge at the back of her property in May 2020. She told the landlord about this again the following month and that it had led to her feeling unsafe because people were using it to access other properties via her garden. While not obligated to carry out additional planting to fill this gap, it was reasonable that the landlord consider this based on the security concerns reported. In November 2020 the landlord committed to carry out additional planting to fill the gap but said it could not do this until March 2021. While frustrating for the resident, this was understandable as planting is seasonal and more appropriately carried out in the spring or summer months.
The resident raised this concern again in January 2021 as people were still using it for access and this was a security concern for her. Despite this and the commitment made by the landlord, the planting was not carried out in March 2021. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its subsequent complaint responses. This Service has seen no evidence of the timeframe given for the planting to be completed following the stage two complaint response so cannot determine whether it kept to any commitment made; however, as this was not completed until May 2022, this was unreasonably delayed for over 12 months and amounts to maladministration. The resident repeatedly raised concerns around the security of her property because the gap allowed people to easily access her back garden, which was understandably worrying for her. She also told the landlord that it had led to her feeling unsafe and not opening the door to or making use of the back garden. The evidence indicates that she first raised this issue in May 2020 and as the planting was not completed until two years later, this is a significant amount of time to be worried about this issue and have restricted use of the garden, which would have been distressing for her. While the landlord gave an explanation for the delay in its stage one response, there is no evidence of any subsequent explanation given for this delay. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delay in the handling of this issue.
The landlord said that a reason for the delay in the additional planting taking place was due to staff absence. This suggests that the completion of this was reliant on one individual, rather than being centrally recorded and monitored, which would be best practise. There are gaps in the landlord’s records so it is unclear whether some committed actions were completed and what was discussed and agreed during contact with the resident. These missing records mean that it would not be possible to have a full and complete overview of the matter and so in the absence of staff dealing with the issue, other staff may not have been aware of decisions made and actions required. The gaps in the records most likely contributed to the delay, which caused detriment to the resident due to the sustained period of time she would have been worrying about the security of her property. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its record keeping practises and provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records.

Boundary wall

When the resident first raised concerns about the low boundary wall in 2021, it was in relation to rubbish being thrown over it. In response to this, the landlord looked at whether railings could be fitted to increase the height but determined this was not possible because of planning permission. While frustrating for the resident, this was an understandable outcome. At that point the landlord committed to fit additional signage, which was a reasonable response to the issue. While littering is unpleasant, this is not a high risk issue that would warrant further, more significant action.
When the resident raised further ASB and security concerns about the low wall in June and August 2021, the landlord responded that it would not be able to increase the height of the wall. While understandable, there is no evidence that it considered any other solutions, e.g. installation of CCTV or additional lighting. As the resident had reported more serious ASB and security concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider what further steps it could take to try and resolve these issues. Similarly, in May 2022, after the planning application was refused it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider any other actions it could take to address these issues. Where these considerations are made, it is important that the landlord records this using file or system notes so it can demonstrate its actions at a later date. There is no evidence that it did that in this case.
The resident chased updates from the landlord in respect of this issue as well as the gap in the hedge and on several occasions there is no record of a response being provided. The lack of responses and detailed updates was frustrating for the resident who had expressed concern about the security of her property because of these issues. The lack of response resulted in her taking additional time and trouble to chase and escalate her concerns. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble taken to chase up and escalate these issues.

Response to the resident’s reports of littering and fly-tipping

In its initial response to the report of littering the landlord said that dealing with littering from passers-by would be difficult to address, which was realistic. This was an appropriate response to give in order to help the resident understand the landlord’s limitations in dealing with this issue.
The landlord said it would write to residents about this issue on two occasions and while this Service has seen no evidence that it did, the resident has confirmed it. This was appropriate; however, without being able to see the contents of the letters, it is unclear what message the landlord was aiming to deliver. When writing to residents about littering and fly-tipping, it is appropriate that the landlord remind residents not to do this and warn them of the consequences if they do but it is also important to provide guidance on the correct rubbish disposal arrangements. Without seeing the evidence of the letters sent by the landlord in this case, it is not possible to determine whether the letters sent were appropriate in the circumstances.
In January 2021 the landlord made enquiries with other residents about the cause of the littering and identified that this was from passers-by and foxes and reassured the resident that the caretaker would continue to clear this. While a reasonable response, there is no evidence it considered whether any preventative actions could be taken, e.g. changing the type or layout of the bins to stop foxes being able to access the rubbish or whether any additional litter bins were required.
In its stage two response, the landlord said its estate services team would inform the housing team where there was evidence of who was causing these issues; however, there is no record that the landlord highlighted this issue to its estate services team or proactively sought feedback from them on what was happening in the surrounding area of the property, which would have been appropriate. In addition to this, the landlord could have checked the bin area to ensure there were adequate bins for the number of properties and whether any additional signage was required.
In May and June 2021, the resident reported specific neighbours causing this issue but there is no record that the landlord made contact with these neighbours to address these reports and issue warnings. It later committed that it would do this in its stage two complaint response; however, the fact that it had failed to do this on previous occasions understandably meant that the resident had little or no confidence that it would do this going forward.
The resident made at least ten reports about littering and fly-tipping between May 2020 and August 2021. Of the ten reports made, the records indicate that only three of these were responded to. Five of these reports were made in June 2021, with only one being responded to. The response provided said that the report had been passed to the relevant teams but there is no record of any further update or action by the landlord. The lack of response to the resident’s reports would have been frustrating and resulted in her taking time and trouble to escalate this issue via the complaints process.
Dealing with littering and fly-tipping can be challenging for landlord’s as the source of the problem is not always known or easy to identify. While understandable that it cannot always fully resolve the issue, this Service expects that landlords should consider (and document these considerations) any preventative actions it can take to try and reduce the problem. In this case, the landlord took some steps to do this but did not go far enough and failed to provide appropriate responses to more than half of the resident’s reports. This amounts to service failure and led to the resident feeling frustrated and let down by the landlord. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation made up of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the time and trouble taken by her to escalate this issue. There is also a recommendation for the landlord to introduce staff guidance on dealing with littering and fly-tipping, if it does not already have this.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint in 16 working days, which was a minor delay. It then responded to the stage two complaint in 40 working days, which was a more significant delay and resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for its response on two occasions via this Service. The landlord did apologise for the delay in its stage two response; however, as the overall complaint journey was delayed by 31 days and the resident took additional time and trouble to chase up a final response twice it should have done more to put things right. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble taken in chasing a response to her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While the landlord admitted service failure in both complaint responses, apologised and confirmed the issue had been addressed; there is no evidence that it considered whether further actions were needed to put things right. There is also no evidence that it considered any learning as a result of the service failure, particularly around the missed planting deadline because of staff absence and having a new contractor. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to review the resident’s complaint and its responses and consider any wider learning it could take from this, including any follow up actions it could implement to avoid this type of service failure occurring in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s communal area requests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of littering and fly-tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the communal area request about the hedge was unreasonably delayed by over a year, with no explanation for this delay. The landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to this delay, which meant the resident was left worrying about the security of her property for two years. It also failed to consider alternative options to resolve the issues surrounding the boundary wall and did not respond to a number of the resident’s requests for update.
The landlord did not go far enough in its actions to address and resolve the littering and fly-tipping. It failed to respond to more than half of the resident’s reports and when it did respond there is no evidence that it followed through with the committed actions.
The overall complaint journey was delayed by 31 days and while it took some steps to put this right, the landlord did not go far enough and did not consider any wider learning from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of these matters.
2. Pay the resident £700 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in the handling of the resident’s communal area requests (hedge).
  2. £150 for the time and trouble taken to chase up and escalate her communal area requests (hedge and boundary wall).
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the response to the reports of littering and fly-tipping.
  4. £100 for the time and trouble taken to escalate the reports of littering and fly-tipping.
  5. £100 for the time and trouble taken to chase up a response to her complaint.
3. Review the resident’s complaint and its responses to consider any wider learning and follow up actions required.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its record keeping practises and provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records.
The landlord to introduce a guidance document for staff on dealing with littering and fly-tipping, if it does not already have one.
The landlord should notify this Service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.