Orbit Group Limited (202119712)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119712

Orbit Housing Association Limited

26 July 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 management and handling of:
1. reports of a pigeon infestation.
2. fly tipping on the estate.
3. the standard of cleaning and maintenance on the estate.
4. the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2021.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Background

The resident occupies a first and second floor 2-bedroom maisonette built in 1984 and let under a shared ownership lease let by Orbit Housing Association.
The resident’s property is situated at the end of a terraced row of six pitched-roof properties each containing a dormer window with sloping tiling to the first floor. Pigeons roost on the top of the roofs and on the dormer windows of the terrace, most notably on resident’s property. The resident’s property is next to a separate space designated as a “drying area” for the use of the terraced properties.
The resident’s property was removed from the landlord’s contract for communal cleaning and grounds maintenance in April 2020.

Relevant policies and procedures

The shared ownership lease states the leaseholder’s obligation to:
1. To pay the specified rent at the times and in the manner mentioned without deduction,
2. to pay the service charge during the term by equal payments in advance,
3. to repay to the landlord all costs charges and expenses incurred by it in repairing renewing and reinstating any part of the building not demised or any part of the common parts so far as such repair renewal or reinstatement shall have been necessitated or contributed to by any act neglect or default of the leaseholder.
The shared ownership lease states the landlord’s obligations:
1. to maintain repair redecorate and renew:

(1) the roof foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts thereof,

(2) the common parts,

to light and clean the common parts.

The landlord’s property safety policy sets out the legal framework within which the landlord works to maintain customer safety in its buildings and leisure and play environments. It states, “Orbit aims to demonstrate adherence to a safety-first culture, maintaining high standards of health and safety for residents who live in our homes.”
The landlord’s property management operation policy states:
1. Property managers will focus on the visual and physical quality of our estates, and communal areas, undertaking routine inspections of common areas to ensure they meet the standards expected.
2. During routine estate inspections property managers will identify and request reactive repairs to our estates and communal areas.
The landlord’s estate services procedure states it will deliver a service which includes:
1. the cleaning of all communal areas with regularity dictated by need but will be at least fortnightly,
2. seasonally aligned grounds maintenance works, including the upkeep of grass, shrubs, borders, and boundaries etc, on a twice monthly basis or as appropriate according to growing rates and species,
3. removing fly tipped bulky items that do not pose a serious fire risk within 5 working days of being formally reported,
4. taking immediate action to remove any biological or hazardous waste, or items that pose a serious fire or health and wellbeing risk.
5. completing a set number of site quality inspections per month to monitor the condition of our communal areas.
The landlord’s compensation policy dated June 2020 states:
1. [The landlord] may award compensation if the standard of service [the landlord] provides is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect.. [The landlord] will only pay it if the customer has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
2. [The landlord] will take the following into account when considering compensation:

(1) whether the event has caused the customer financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.

(2) whether the customer has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to our failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are [the landlord’s] responsibility and which the customer has told us about.

The landlord’s February 2021 and April 2021 complaints policies state:
1. [The landlord] will manage all complaints through our two stage complaints process.
2. [The landlord] will acknowledge all complaints within three working days and aim to fully respond to complaints within ten working days.
3. [The landlord] “will accept complaints made in any way including phone, email, or a form on our website.”
4. we will contact customers to discuss the outcome of both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint investigations and to explain our decision before we confirm this in writing.
5. [The landlord] will aim to respond to all requests for a complaint review within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord and ward councillor on 1 July 2019 works to address fly tipping, weeds, a pigeon infestation.
The resident emailed the landlord on again 23 July 2019 requesting an update about works to address fly tipping, weeds, a pigeon infestation, and a site visit.
The resident emailed the councillor on 25 July 2019 confirming the location where fly tipping was taking place.
The councillor emailed the resident on 20 September 2021 stating the landlord would not complete works to clear a pigeon infestation. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord declined to complete the works.
The landlord created a works order to respond to “a drying area with a gate which has been removed. Please could a new one be fitted. This will need to be measured prior to fitting”. It is not clear what date the works order was raised but the target date was 24 October 2019. The attending contractor subsequently noted the repair was completed on 6 February 2020.
The resident emailed the councillor on 12 December 2019 requesting the date of the next site visit. The councillor advised the resident that the previous site visit was in 2018 and stated that “Orbit only deals with pest issues on Orbit land”.
The landlord attended the resident’s estate area on 6 February 2020 to inspect and measure up the drying area gate as it had been removed.
The resident emailed photographs of a fly tipped area located next to the resident’s property to the landlord on 24 February 2020.
The landlord removed the resident’s property from the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance contract on 9 April 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord in the morning of 22 April 2020 to advise the pigeon problem was “beyond terrible” and that they have a “stench in the house which is a decaying animal”. The resident stated they contacted environmental health, but they were only dealing with rats. The resident stated, “rubbish dumped in the drying areas attracts rats too”. Subsequent email and telephone contact attempts between the resident and landlord were unsuccessful on this day as a response to the resident’s original email.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 April 2020 stating it was waiting for a proposal from its pest control contractor and hoped to be able to raise a works order which would include damage to the property eaves.
The landlord’s pest control contractor prepared a report dated 28 April 2020 with photographs, findings and recommendations following a survey of the resident’s address. The report outlined:
1. pigeons were active in broken fascia and soffits, underneath soffits of loft extensions, window ledges and the top roof tiles for the purpose of roosting.
2. a build-up of fouling was present which was a slip hazard.
3. information about clearance and disinfection including the installation of 50mm netting, and the use of bird points as a deterrent to roosting.
4. “to undertake a pest bird clearance and disinfection and to install a netting and Bird Point system as described will be £3,822.51.
The resident emailed an update request to the landlord on 4 May 2020 related to the pigeon infestation and when works would be completed. The resident asked the landlord to push things forward if possible and explained:
1. there were 30 or 40 birds roosting on their house and the noise was terrible especially at 5.30am,
2. they couldn’t open windows as birds sit on the ledges and satellite dish,
3. “it is like water torture,”
4. a neighbouring resident is feeding the birds,
5. the matter “has to be a health hazard now.”
The resident emailed a further update request to the landlord on 11 May 2020. The resident explained the smell is awful and “literally takes your breath away,” further that they can’t have a window open so coupled with lockdown it has been a prison”. The resident stated it is having an effect on the health of everyone living close by.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2020 requesting information about pest control treatments. The resident stated the landlord’s previous response was four weeks ago and “it is really disgusting here with pigeons all over the place along with poop, feathers and other vermin…”
The resident emailed photographs to the landlord on 7 June 2020 stating:
1. “this where they peck at bird seed thrown out to them and they are on every roof around here like this- worse if it rains …
2. every house has pigeons roosting,
3. the impact of pigeons is ‘the worst ever,’
4. if the landlord would not fulfil their responsibility, they would get the work completed themself and withhold rent until the costs are reimbursed.
5. it is a health hazard that is getting worse,
6. At a time when we’ve been in our homes 24/7 for months and are likely to remain that way for a while this is like torture and is causing me increased mental health issues”.
The landlord raised a works order on 5 November 2020 to reinstate the wooden communal gate by the alleyway as the area is “a dumping ground”. The landlord completed the repair on 2 December 2020 before the target date.
The landlord completed an estate inspection of the resident’s estate areas on 22 February 2021. The quarterly report identified works were required to address the condition of paving slabs and dropped kerbs, fencing, walls, and alley gating. The report found no other defects.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 June 2021 to find out when the next inspection of the resident’s area would be and what the maintenance plans were for the coming year due to ongoing roosting pigeons, weeds in the car park and fly tipping. The resident advised they understood that during lockdown “contractors were constrained.”
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2021. The resident’s complaint stated:
1. “There has been an ongoing issue with fly tipping, estate maintenance and pigeon infestations over a number of years.
2. We do not get regular site visits and although we pay service charges as part of the rent there is no regular maintenance and there has been nothing in the last 5 or so years.
3. During lockdown there was little point in following anything up due to constraints, but we need to understand what we can reasonably expect from Orbit as a landlord and collector of service charges.
4. There are two areas of fly tipped rubbish, pigeons roosting and other birds nesting in gaps in roofs alongside foot high weeds throughout the car park.
5. I’ve lived here for 16 years and have always had to complain to get anything done which is a shame.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2021 confirming they held a meeting with the estates team and referred to a plan to recharge pigeon proofing works to residents.
The landlord emailed a stage one complaint acknowledgment letter on 16 June 2021. The letter stated it understood the resident was “unhappy with the fly tipping, estate maintenance and pigeon infestations over a number of years” and that the complaint would be thoroughly investigated. The letter did not provide an expected response date.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 June 2021 to confirm that it had plans to carry out repairs and site visits.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 23 June 2021 and sent a stage one complaint response later the same day. The letter apologised to the resident and stated:
1. it investigated issues with fly tipping, estate maintenance and a pigeon infestation for a number of years,
2. it was waiting “on costing for the relevant team to attend and rectify the estate” and would advise when the work will be completed,
3. bird proofing work was requested in 2020 but previously declined due to cost,
4. the phone number for reporting fly tipping, which is usually cleared in 48 hours,
5. it would visit the property regarding the birds in the gaps in the roof the following week,
6. it was only required to complete an estate inspection on an annual basis,
7. it was reviewing the issues and situation regularly,
8. it was unable to locate any failings and did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord completed an estate inspection on 6 July 2021. The bi-annual report identified works were required to address:
1. tarmacking and line marking in car park areas,
2. a damaged wall by the bus stop where bricks were removed,
3. pedestrian gate repairs and graffiti removal to the drying area gate,
4. anti-climb paint and signage requirements at the top of a brick wall,
5. overgrown grass and weeds and general estate appearance,
6. gutter clearance and fix at No.19.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2021 advising it requested information about the sinking fund balance and whether it could be used to address repairs to the drying area which was fly tipped and “unusable”.
The landlord sent an internal email on 13 July 2021 stating:
1. the resident’s street could be added to the estate improvement plan in place of a different street address that was removed,
2. “There is a drying area there which is not used, and I would like a new gate / door on there and suggestions to prevent people being able to climb over the wall”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 July 2021 and stated it would seek advice on whether the sinking fund could be used for pest control works. The landlord further advised works to the drying area would be completed under estate improvements. The landlord advised it would forward a quote from the contractor that would be dealing with the repairs.
The landlord posted a block letter to the leaseholders in the resident’s street dated 13 July 2021 related to pigeon nesting. The letter stated it received two quotes for pest control works and has requested a third. The landlord stated and that Section 20 consultation letters would be issued when the final quote was received and costs for the works would be taken from the sinking fund.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2021 to check if they received letters about pigeon proofing that were sent out for delivery. The resident replied to the email to confirm they received the letters.
The pest control contractor prepared a report dated 23 July 2021 with photographs, findings and recommendations following a survey of the resident’s address. The report stated,
1. “pigeon activity was along the whole section of houses but concentrated on the roof section of [the resident’s home] where pigeons were roosting on both sides of the dormer”.
2. “by proofing the dormer the pigeons will become displaced and move to another section of the roof or neighbouring properties”.
3. “scaffolding would be required” [by the landlord] and “a deep clean of all the patches of droppings, which can become a slip hazard when wet is also required.”
4. The contractor provided two different quotes to combat the issues:
  1. “to supply and fit 50mm pigeon netting to both sides of the dormer to prevent the pigeons from roosting either side: £660.00+VAT.”
  2. “to supply and fit 50mm pigeons netting to both sides of the dormer to prevent pigeons from roosting along with the front section of the dormer and the installation of pigeon spike along the front section of guttering: £860.00+VAT.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 30 July 2021 that confirmed the resident’s street address was added to the estate improvement plan.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 6 August 2021 about repair orders related to anti climb paintwork and the drying area pedestrian gates. The landlord stated;
1. the cost of works were below the threshold for Section 20 consultation.
2. it would seek an update the same day about the schedule of ground works.
The resident emailed the landlord about the pigeon works later the same day to clarify the extent of the pigeon proofing works. The landlord replied stating “pigeon proofing works were planned for all the properties in the row.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 August 2021 to confirm the pigeons roost outside the front and back of the property.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 16 August 2021 stating, “all works would be completed within 28 days” however it did not make clear what works it was referring to in the email.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 September 2021 to “get confirmation of the date when works will begin specifically to “very overgrown weeds”. The resident advised an elderly lady with a visual impairment fell outside their house the previous Friday “as the weeds are so overgrown and are in clumps through the pavement and kerb stones”.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 23 September 2021 requesting her complaint is escalated to stage 2.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 1 October 2021 to request further information about when works would begin.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 again on 11 October 2021 using an online form and again by email on 12 October 2021 because they did not receive a complaint acknowledgement from the landlord. The stage 2 complaint stated:
1. “they previously complained about a lack of repairs, a pigeon infestation and other maintenance issues and the stage one response received in June confirmed plans to resolve the matters were in place, but no further action was taken,
2. they sent an email to ask how to make a stage 2 complaint which was not responded to,
3. they would like to make a stage 2 complaint about the ongoing issues which go back 3 years.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s stage 2 complaint request internally on 11, 12 and 13 October 2021 with a request it is logged, acknowledged, investigated, and replied to.
The landlord sent a further internal email on 15 October 2021 related to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The email stated an acknowledgement letter should be issued by 20 October 2021 and the final response should be issued by 12 November 2021.
The landlord sent a stage two complaint review acknowledgement letter to the resident on 15 October 2021. The letter stated this was in relation to
1. “a lack of action taken, following your reports of required maintenance, fly tipping and a pigeon infestation in the building.”
2. “no action has been taken since June 2021”
3. The letter stated a member of the senior management team will be in contact within 5 days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 October 2021 to advise the stage 2 complaint response date was extended to 26 November 2021.
The landlord issued a Section 20 consultation notice on 22 November 2021 in relation to works “to install bird proofing to address pigeon nesting underneath soffits, roof tiles and fascia boards” in the area.
The landlord emailed the resident a copy of the landlord final stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2021. The letter stated:
1. it had reviewed information from three different staff teams,
2. it was in the process of Section 20 consultation to address pigeon infestation,
3. it was seeking information about why grounds maintenance was not taking place at the resident’s address,
4. it confirmed a site review meeting was arranged and the resident would be invited to attend,
5. it confirmed the resident was not charged for any estate maintenance or repairs.
6. The letter referred the resident to this service.
The resident emailed this Service on 25 November 2021 requesting their complaint is investigated. The resident’s complaint was accepted as duly made by this Service on 28 January 2022.
A pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 10 January 2022 to provide a plan of action to address the pigeon roosting matters. This included repairing fascia boards, installing mesh netting and a one-way hatch. The contractor stated, “It is illegal to just repair the fascia boards and block the birds in so that is not an option.”
The landlord emailed this Service on 29 March 2022 stating the resident’s property was not included within its contract for communal cleaning and grounds maintenance because it was removed in April 2020. The landlord explained that the contract manager responsible left the organisation without leaving documentation to explain the rationale for the removal of the housing block and that there had been no attendance since. The landlord stated a site inspection was scheduled for the next day for the block and grounds to be included in the cleaning and grounds maintenance contract.
The landlord posted a letter to the leaseholders in the resident’s street dated 13 May 2022. The letter confirmed proofing works were completed at the resident’s property on 8 February 2022 and that it intended to address the nesting pigeons on neighbouring properties in the coming weeks. The letter referred to advice it received from the pest control contractor stating it was “illegal to repair the fascia boards and block the birds in” and so a named contractor would take a coordinated approach.”

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of a pigeon infestation.

The resident first reported their concerns about pigeons at their property in July 2019. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns which was unreasonable. The resident subsequently involved their councillor in their communications with their landlord which resulted in the resident receiving confirmation in September 2019 that the landlord would not address the pigeon matters. The length of time taken for the landlord to respond to the matter and the decision not to address the pigeon concerns without reason was unreasonable and caused detriment to the resident.
The resident reported their concerns about pigeons to the landlord again on 22 April 2020 as the impact had become “beyond terrible”. It was evident that the cumulative impact of the untreated pest control matter increased detriment to the resident and caused them time and trouble pursuing a remedy from the landlord.
The landlord confirmed it would seek advice from a pest control contractor and made arrangements for a site assessment. Seeking expert guidance was a reasonable and an expected response for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord received an investigation report from its pest control contractor six days later with options for treating the pigeon nuisance and the expected costs. This was a timely response to the matter and represented good practise.
The resident subsequently contacted the resident four times during May 2020 and June 2020 to get an update on the landlord’s plans to treat the pigeons. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about the matter or made arrangements for treatment works to commence. The landlord was expected to address the impact of the pigeons on the resident and provide information about the action it intended to take including a timescale. This Service has not seen any evidence that that the landlord kept records that it gave consideration to the quote and/or recorded why the quote was rejected and this was expected. Leaving the resident without information would have caused frustration and detriment to the resident who lived in the property in increasingly hazardous circumstances.
This Service recognises that the impact of Covid-19 during 2020 and 2021 had repercussions on the coordination of housing services. The resident recognised this themselves in their email of 2 June 2021. However, external pigeon proofing works would have been achievable given the matter affected a communal outside space and the landlord had received advice about possible treatment options that could be completed at that time. Therefore Covid-19 need not have prevented the works. The resident referred to their home during this period as “a prison” because they were unable to open their windows and the landlord should have increased their efforts to find a solution to the matter so as to ensure its housing block met acceptable living standards, in particular during a period of lockdown when residents could not freely go outside.
The landlord failed to take any action to address the pigeon matters or provide any further information about it until a year later in June 2021 when it referred to the matter in its stage one complaint response. The landlord stated the property manager “raised works for the bird proofing back in early 2020, but unfortunately, due to the cost, this was declined”. This was an unreasonable response for the landlord to take in particular as it could have recharged the cost of the works to the leaseholders. The landlord was expected at the very least to communicate its decision to the resident at the time she pursued pigeon treatment works in 2020 to manage their expectations. This Service also considers the landlord should have had the foresight to recognise that the matter had become and would continue to increasingly impact the resident and cause escalated health and safety concerns. Further that the pigeon activity and mess would cause damage to the property and a potential slipping hazard to residents and visitors. The landlord had received advice from a pest control contractor and therefore knew what works were required, the likely impact and the associated costs. By failing to take action in a timely way the landlord aggravated the matter which increased the impact of the matter and the associated detriment to the resident.
The landlord continually failed to take action to address the matter, despite obtaining a quote from a different pest control contractor in July 2021 and the matter being raised in a stage two complaint escalation in October 2021 with a greater emphasis on the time the landlord had taken to address the matter which the resident stated was “at least three years”. This Service considers the increased impact on the resident resulting from the cumulative increase of pigeon noise at sunrise and throughout the day, the noxious smell and biohazard concerns of uncleaned pigeon excrement and the inability to open windows and ventilate the property would have been extreme. This would have been even more greatly compounded during Covid-19 when the resident was expected to stay indoors in line with government guidance. Indeed, the resident mentioned the impact on her mental health; however, the landlord did not take this into account.
The landlord issued a section 20 consultation letter to the residents on 23 November 2021 stating its intention “to install bird proofing to address pigeon nesting underneath soffits, roof tiles and fascia boards”. The landlord was entitled to recover costs for works that exceeded the Section 20 financial limits and so issuing a consultation notice was appropriate. However, this Service cannot see a good reason for the landlord’s decision not to complete works in 2020 “due to cost” if its intention were to recover the costs of the works from residents when it decided to complete works at a later date. This decision would have caused frustration and distress to the resident(s) that waited over two years for any works to commence and endured an increasing inconvenience and impact on their wellbeing.
Further frustration was likely to have been caused to the resident as the landlord had acknowledged but not followed up on a suggestion that the costs of pest control works could come from a sinking fund. The landlord’s failure to communicate clearly about costs so as to manage the resident’s expectations was unreasonable. Further its delays in deciding on a course of action and issuing consultation documentation increased the severity of the pest control matter and it is likely to have increased the extent of the damage to the property. This was unreasonable and caused nuisance to the resident(s) in addition to inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing a remedy.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord obtained a further quote from a pest control contractor in January 2022 for the treatment of pigeon roosting matters. Further, that it issued a “block letter” communication to the resident on 13 May 2022 that confirmed the pigeon matter had still not been fully addressed. This Service has since been advised that the landlord eventually completed pigeon proofing works and repaired the property fascia boards.
The landlord’s compensation procedure allowed it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the pigeon proofing repairs to be completed and the adverse impact it had on the resident over a significant period of time. However, the landlord failed to offer any type of redress to the resident. This Service considers a compensation award was due and the landlord’s failure to make an award was a missed the opportunity to put right its failings and restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
By failing to clearly communicate with the resident, put in place timely actions to address the presence of severe pigeon roosting the landlord exacerbated the presence of the pest issues and therefore the impact and sustained detriment to the resident over a three-year period. Taking these matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of a pigeon infestation.

The landlord’s management and handling of fly tipping on the estate

The resident raised concerns about the conditions of the estate areas, in relation to fly tipping in July 2019. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s reports or took any action to address the fly tipping they reported, and this was expected in line with the estate services procedure.
The resident emailed their councillor in December 2019 requesting information about the date of site visits. This councillor replied to the resident stating the previous site visit was completed in 2018. The lack of estate inspections during 2019 did not align with the landlord estate services procedure which stated it would complete “a set number of site quality inspections per month to monitor the condition of our communal areas”. If the landlord had completed routine estate inspections during 2019 it would most likely have identified the presence of fly tipping, as reported by the resident, (and the other associated matter this report addresses) and arranged clearance works. This Service considers the landlord’s failure to inspect the estate prolonged the presence of fly tipping thereby impacting the estate conditions and causing detriment to the resident.
The resident emailed photographs of the fly tipped area to the landlord in February 2020 with an expectation that the landlord would arrange a clearance in line with its 5-day clearance timescales. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that this took place, and this resulted in an increase of fly tipping in the area which expanded to two fly tipped areas, according to the resident’s complaint. Therefore the landlord’s failure to take action further exacerbated the presence of fly tipping and increased the detriment to the resident and their neighbours and would have adversely impacted on the appearance, condition, and safety of the estate.
The landlord’s continued failure to take action to respond to the matter was raised in the resident’s stage one complaint as a result of the increase of detriment it caused to them. The landlord did not recognise its failings in its stage one complaint response, nor did it confirm it made arrangements to address the matter, instead it provided a contact number for the resident to report fly tipping themselves. This was unreasonable given the resident had reported the matter to the landlord previously without a resolution. Further, that they had raised the matter in their complaint and the landlord was aware of the location and the impact the fly tipping had on the resident. By failing to address the matter prior to responding the resident, such as by removing the items, making clearance arrangements or at the very least carrying out an inspection, the landlord increased the detriment, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing a remedy.
There is evidence that the landlord completed site inspections in February 2021 and again in July 2021. The landlord noted an increase of estate maintenance repairs and grounds maintenance concerns, but the fly tipping the resident reported was not recorded on the estate inspection reports. The landlord subsequently added the area to the estate improvement plan it operated to address isolated areas where improvement was required, and this was a reasonable response to take to address the deterioration in the area. However, the landlord failed to recognise the area was omitted from the ground maintenance and communal cleaning contract and this suggests there was a failure in joining up the estate services and property management functions.
The landlord sent an internal email in July 2021 setting out that the resident’s drying area had become unusable due to the presence of fly tipping that had not been addressed. Under the terms of its estate services procedure, the landlord was expected to clean the communal areas at least fortnightly and inspect, maintain, and repair the communal estate areas in line with the commitments contained in the resident’s occupancy agreement. This was not completed as expected which most likely contributed to the increase of fly tipping in the area. It subsequently became apparent that the property had been removed from the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance contract. This was wholly unreasonable and represents a significant service failure and is addressed later in this report. The property manager was expected to complete routine block inspections in the area and address and identify cleaning and grounds maintenance issued as well as suggest environmental improvements. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of fly tipping or sought to resolve the reported matter when visiting the estate and this was expected.
The resident complained about the ongoing fly tipping in their stage two complaint. The landlord responded by suggesting it would set up a grounds maintenance meeting and invite the resident to attend. The inclusive approach the landlord took was a reasonable and demonstrated it took the resident’s views into consideration. However, the reliance on a future meeting to address the matter after the complaint response was issued failed to achieve a resolution to the matter and therefore did not end the period of detriment to the resident in a timelier way.
The resident referred to the matter of fly tipping in an email they sent to this Service in January 2022. The resident stated it was an ongoing issue along with general maintenance and that there were no plans in place to address this. This Service would expect the landlord to have taken steps to ensure the estate areas were maintained in line with its landlord obligations and service standards.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided a reasonable response to address the resident’s reports of fly tipping. Nor or a proactive approach to ensure the estate areas were monitored to prevent fly tipping taking place. The landlord offered to complete an inspection with the resident in its stage two complaint response, but this Service has seen no evidence that this was undertaken. Taking these matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping on the estate.

The landlord’s management and handling of the standard of cleaning and maintenance of the estate

The resident raised their concerns about the conditions of the estate areas, in relation to the presence of weeds on the estate in emails they sent to the landlord in July 2019. The resident subsequently emailed their local councillor in December 2019 to understand when estate inspections would occur. The resident appropriately repeated and therefore escalated their concern that grounds maintenance and estate services were either not in place, or at least not meeting an expected standard. The councillor replied to the resident confirming no estate inspections had taken place since 2018 which did not align with the regular estate inspection timescales outlined in the landlord estate services procedure.
The resident restated their concern about the health and safety of the estate grounds in September 2021 following the sighting of an elderly lady that tripped. The landlord had completed estate inspections during February and July 2021 and the property manager recorded a deterioration of the area in the estate inspection reports. The landlord added the area to an estate improvement plan and in doing so evidenced its understanding that the area was below its usual standards. The landlord was expected to have prevented the estate falling into further substandard conditions as required by the property management operation policy. This did not happen which was a failing.
The resident raised their concerns about the cleanliness and maintenance of the estate in their stage two complaint escalation noting that that maintenance issues were ongoing (alongside complaints about fly tipping and pigeon nesting addressed separately in this report). The landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 23 November 2021 set out that it was investigating why ground maintenance works were not taking place at the resident’s address. However it did not investigate the matter sufficiently to realise that the property was removed from the cleaning and grounds maintenance contract. Therefore no clear explanation or resolution was identified and offered. The landlord confirmed that the resident would not be charged a service charge for the estate maintenance and repairs, and this was appropriate, but the landlord failed to refer to the reimbursement of cleaning costs which it later came to be understand were also affected. This caused inconvenience and financial detriment to the resident.
The landlord confirmed to this Service in an email dated 29 March 2022 that it had removed the resident’s address from the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance contract in April 2020 and that no works had been completed at the address since. It is not clear to this Service or to the landlord how the removal of the address came to occur or why the landlord did not realise the removal of the resident’s address had taken place sooner. It is noted that the relevant staff member left the organisation and was therefore unavailable to respond to the landlord’s investigation into the matter. Notwithstanding, the contract decision and the detriment it caused was wholly unreasonable.
The landlord was expected to have controls in place to ensure that the housing services it was obliged to provide were upheld and inspected at regular intervals so as to ensure they met its service standards. Further, the landlord was expected to have arrangements in place that ensure contract decisions of such magnitude could not be achieved without awareness being more widely known within the organisation, and/or without an audit trail record of decisions that have such financial and reputational implications for the organisation.
This Service was advised that arrangements to assess the site were undertaken on 30 March 2022, two years after the property had been removed from the contract. This Service is not clear when the contract was reinstated or what works took place at the address since but considers an award of compensation is due for the inconvenience and failure to complete its contracted cleaning and grounds maintenance obligations at the address over the two-year period.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord failed to provide a cleaning and grounds maintenance service for at least a two-year period due to its decision to remove the address from the associated contract. The landlord failed to complete regular and routine inspections and the resulted in the deterioration of the area leading to health and safety risk. It missed opportunities to identify the cessation of the services at earlier points in time. This cumulatively provided detriment to the resident. Taking these matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the standard of cleaning and maintenance of the estate.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord’s complaint policies clearly set out the expectations for handling complaints at both stage one and the stage two review stage. The policies also state complaints should be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within ten working days.
There is evidence that the landlord did not comply with its complaint policy when handling the resident’s complaint at stage one and the stage two review in the following ways:
1. it issued a stage one acknowledgement to the resident 10 days after the complaint was submitted. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and prevented the matter being addressed in a timely way.
2. The landlord failed to provide an expected response date in its stage one and two acknowledgement letters.
3. The landlord’s stage one complaint acknowledgement letter incorrectly stated, “we have received a request that you wish to escalate your complaint.” The resident was not escalating their complaint, as they had not yet received a complaint response to escalate.
4. The landlord failed to register the resident’s first stage two escalation request which they emailed to the landlord on 23 September 2021. This created inconvenience and time and trouble the resident because they subsequently had to resubmit their complaint.
5. The resident resubmitted their stage two escalation request to the landlord again on the 11 and 12 October 2021, but it was not logged by the landlord until 15 October 2021. This delayed the 20-day response timescale the landlord recorded internally to 12 November 2021 instead of 8 November 2021. This delay created further detriment to the resident.
6. The landlord failed to record notes of conversations it held with the resident, which it later referred to in its complaint responses such as conversations held on 23 June 2021, 19 November 2021. The landlord was expected to keep contemporaneous records of conversations and action it had taken to respond to the resident.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly state if it was a stage one or stage two response, and this resulted in a lack of clarity about the complaint handling process.
8. The classification of complaints and complaint responses did not use a consistent number referencing system and so case ID’s used for stage one and stage two complaint responses did not align. This resulted in an unclear complaint audit trail.
The information the landlord provided in its stage one response stated that the landlord was required to complete estate inspections once annually. This advice was incorrect and did not align with the landlord’s estate services procedure which stated it will complete a set number of site quality inspections per month to monitor the condition of our communal areas. It is unreasonable for the landlord to have provided misleading advice about its service standards, particularly in its complaint responses which are expected to bring resolution to matters.
The landlord advised that reports of fly tipping would be removed within 48 hours of a report being made. However this advice did not align with the landlord’s estate services policy which stated it would “remove fly tipped bulky items that do not pose a serious fire risk within 5 working days of being formally reported”. This comment suggests a failure by the landlord in its investigation into the complaint and its understanding of key data contained within its own policies.
The landlord concluded its stage one response by suggesting it was reviewing the issues related to the resident’s complaint and there was no service failure. The response failed to provide clarity or provide a detailed commitment to addressing the matters the resident raised. The complaints procedure provides a framework and process for the landlord to resolve matters residents are unhappy about. In line with the objective of the complaint procedure the landlord was expected to provide assurance that action to address the matters raised was in hand such as by providing clear timescales or making arrangements to clear the fly tipping rather than providing a phone number for the resident to do so. This cannot but have caused frustration to the resident and caused inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing a remedy that was not provided.
Both the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses failed to respond to or empathise with the resident’s personal circumstances in relation to the amount of time they were impacted by pigeon nesting and estate maintenance issues. This resulted in a missed opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of estate services.
The landlord’s stage two response recognised that grounds maintenance was not being conducted at the resident’s address but failed to set a clear resolution to the matter or provide a commitment timeline for further information to be provided. Given the landlord had extended its response timeline, the letter was vague and lacked any additional information than the stage one response. As such, the landlord failed to meaningfully address the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance.
The landlord issued its stage two review letter later than the expected response date, but the landlord had issued a holding response to the resident within time which clearly stated the new expected response date. This was good practice.
The landlord’s compensation procedure allowed it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the landlord to respond the pigeon nesting, its failure to complete estate services and grounds maintenance and the adverse impact it had on the resident. However, the landlord failed to offer any compensation when it was appropriate for it to do so. This was a failure.
When all the factors, positive and negative, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, assessment of compensation, subsequent offers, and communications are considered, the landlord’s actions in respect of this element of complaint constitute maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. the resident’s reports of pigeon infestation.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

b. fly tipping on the estate.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

c. the standard of cleaning and maintenance of the estate.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

d. the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s reports of a pigeon infestation in a timely way was unreasonable. This Service has seen no good reason for the landlord decision not to address the matter, especially given its awareness of the increasing impact it had on the resident’s health and wellbeing during a time of enforced home living conditions related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord’s delay in addressing the matter exacerbated the presence of pigeons and the associated noise and noxious waste they create, and this significantly increased the detriment to the resident.
The landlord was expected to clear fly tipping from the estate areas within 5 days of reports being made and ensure the estate areas were monitored to prevent fly tipping taking place. The landlord failed to respond to or monitor the area which resulted in increased fly tipping and the resident’s drying area being unusable which caused detriment to the resident.
The landlord failed to provide cleaning and grounds maintenance to the resident’s block and estate areas for at least a two-year period as a result of its decision to remove the area from the relevant contract. The landlord’s lack of awareness of its own actions and further failure to recognise its error when responding to the resident’s complaint was unreasonable and the resulting impact of a lack of attention paid to the area caused cumulatively increased detriment to the resident as the area increasingly deteriorated.
The landlord failed to register and acknowledge the resident’s complaints within its policy timescales, and this was expected. The landlord failed to consider providing compensation to the resident in recognition of its failings and as an opportunity to restore some confidence in the landlord’s handling and management of housing services.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the pigeon proofing repairs and for its estate maintenance and complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £2,400 for inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to effectively tackle the presence and impact of a pigeon infestation.
2. £500 for the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to provide cleaning and grounds maintenance services.
3. £500 for its failure to respond to the removal of fly tipping in the estate areas.
4. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
The total compensation award is £3,700 and is to be provided to the resident’s bank account within 28 days of the receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to initiate and complete a strategic review of the learning from this case in respect of its management of and response to pest control issues. In particular, to review the process and procedures it follows when addressing the presence of pests that if left untreated have a cumulative impact on residents and condition of the landlord’s housing stock. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within 6 weeks of receipt of this report. The landlord is further ordered to bring any action and learning into its business-as-usual activity within 4 months of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. This review must include at minimum:
1. the degree of detriment required before the landlord would consider compensation and the circumstances that trigger the landlord’s consideration of any compensation payment.

The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within 2 months of receipt of this report.

The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its estate inspection practices are consistent and fully align with the best practice principles and are clear in their frequency and scope of inspections. For example, as suggested by Housemark. The landlord is further ordered to identify suitable enhancements to its oversight and control measures in respect of any inclusion or exclusion of properties from its estate services contracts. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 2 months of this report.