Stonewater Limited (202412475)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat on an estate. He has complained about the landlord’s delays removing fly tipped items from a communal bin store, which he says impacts the emptying of the bins by the local authority. He has also complained about the standard of the communal cleaning, including that floors were not being mopped and that residents were having to do this themselves.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of fly tipping in a communal bin store.
   2. Communal cleaning concerns.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping in a communal bin store.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s communal cleaning concerns.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping in a communal bin store

6. The landlord acknowledged some issues and awarded compensation. However, issues with its record keeping, combined with lack of first-hand inspection in response to the complaint, undermines whether it reasonably investigated and resolved the then issues. It also did not meet commitments in its responses to put up signs and communicate to residents about the issue. The resident was therefore likely caused more distress, inconvenience and frustration than it has acknowledged.

The handling of the resident’s communal cleaning concerns

7. The landlord’s records are not as clear as they would be expected to be. However, it is reasonably evident that it took actions for the cleaning, after which it received no reports from the resident about the cleaning in the months after the complaint.

The complaint handling

8. There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling which the landlord reasonably acknowledged and compensated for.

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.

9. The landlord logged a request to remove items from the bin store on 21 August 2023 after a report from the resident. On 20 September 2023, he reported that the items were still there and blocking the local authority from emptying the bins. He chased again on 4 October 2023 and complained on 11 October 2023. The landlord logged further requests for items to be removed on 13 and 25 October 2023, and its records say this was completed on 31 October 2023. Its 30 October 2023 stage 1 response acknowledged there was a delay removing the items and awarded £50.
10. This was reasonable, as this reasonably addressed the delays, and the resident does not seem to dispute that fly tipping in the bin store around this time was removed. However, there is a discrepancy between when the landlord’s stage 1 response said the fly tipping was removed (22 October 2023) and when its records say this was done (31 October 2023), which is not entirely satisfactory.
11. The landlord logged another request to remove items on 13 January 2024 after a report from the resident, although he said this was to follow up a late November 2023 report. He then chased on 21 January 2024 and complained on 28 February 2024. The landlord logged further requests to remove items on 17 and 22 April 2024. Its 23 April 2024 stage 2 response said a March 2024 estate inspection found the bin store to be clear and it would put up signage and contact residents about the fly tipping. It acknowledged issues with communication, delays, and record keeping and awarded £165 to recognise this.
12. The issues with communication, delays and record keeping reflect issues evident to the Ombudsman, so this was reasonable to some extent. However, aspects of the response was not satisfactory.
13. The resident said he made a further report in late November 2023. It is not evident that the landlord received further reports until January 2024. However, it seems possible that the resident made a November 2023 report which was not recorded, given the issues with delays and record keeping. It would have been helpful for the landlord to investigate this to consider if there had been a delay since then, such as ask the resident for further information about the alleged November 2023 report.
14. The landlord recognised that there were issues with its record keeping, so its reliance on a March 2024 estate visit to say the bin store was clear does not seem entirely reasonable. The bin store also seems to be on an estate with different bin stores for different flat ranges, where there may be a potential for one bin store to be confused with another.
15. The landlord could have considered its policy that encourages joint inspections with residents, and done an inspection specifically to review the present fly tipping situation, particularly as it had logged further requests to remove items in April 2024. This would have shown it was doing an evidence-based investigation of the complaint and helped avoid any potential confusion.
16. The landlord logged a further request on 3 May 2024 and its contractor said items were removed on 7 May 2024. However, in July 2024, the resident reported that items from January and April 2024 were still in the bin store, after which the landlord confirmed with the resident in September 2024 that the bin store had been cleared.
17. The landlord does not show that it took steps such as this earlier, in the complaint timeframe, to confirm removal of items. It has also not supplied photos from the March 2024 inspection or the May 2024 removal of items. This undermines whether fly tipping in the bin store reported in January 2024 was removed until after July 2024, at least 6 months later.
18. The landlord made a commitment in its April 2024 stage 2 response to put up signage. It recently acknowledges that it did not put up signage and says it now aims to put this up in December 2025. This will be around 15 months after it made the commitment, which is not reasonable.
19. The landlord also made a commitment in its stage 2 response to contact residents about the fly tipping. For this, it sent a text that asked residents to use correct bins for waste disposal and to keep hallways clear. This does not seem to adequately reflect the resident’s concerns, that the fly tipping in the bin store was preventing the local authority from doing refuse collection, and it could have been more specific.
20. Finally, the evidence shows that after the landlord has logged requests for fly tipping to be removed, these have repeatedly faced lengthy delays beyond the week the landlord has said fly tipping removal is expected to take. It is unclear that the landlord considered sufficient learning for this to identify and resolve the causes.
21. Overall, the landlord was positive to acknowledge issues with the handling of the fly tipping reports and award a total of £175 for this aspect. However, record keeping issues undermine whether it reasonably resolved the then fly tipping in the bin store.
22. The landlord could have shown it took the resident’s concerns that the issue impacted refuse collection more seriously. It could have shown it took more action in response to the complaint than it did, such as arranged a joint inspection with the resident in line with its policy, or liaised with him to confirm fly tipping was removed.
23. The landlord also did not reasonably meet commitments to put up signs and contact residents about the issue. Its handling likely caused the resident more distress, inconvenience and frustration than it acknowledged. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about fly tipping.

24. The resident contacted the landlord about the cleaning on 4 and 6 October 2023 and then complained on 11 October 2023. He said that the floors were only being vacuumed and residents were having to mop the floors themselves. The landlord’s October 2023 stage 1 response acknowledged issues and said it had taken steps to improve future service.
25. The cleaning seems to be scheduled for every 2 weeks at the resident’s block. The records suggest some issues before his complaint. Quality control inspections were scheduled in December 2022, May 2023 and July 2023, but it is unclear these were done. No cleaning also appears to have been done between 29 September 2023 and 27 October 2023, potentially resulting in 1 missed visit. This may have contributed to the resident’s then concerns that the floors were not being mopped.
26. However, the evidence does show that a quality control inspection was done on 30 October 2023. Photographs from this show ‘wet floor’ signs which suggests the floors were mopped then. This supports the landlord’s stage 1 response that it had taken steps to try to improve the service, so this reasonably addressed the issue then.
27. The resident then complained on 28 February 2024 that mopping was still not being done and another resident raised concerns in late March 2024. The landlord internally discussed the cleaning and said it had escalated the issue and told the service provider to do a quality control inspection. The landlord’s 23 April 2024 stage 2 response said it had taken steps to improve and monitor the service but invited the resident to let it know if it did not improve.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response suitably acknowledged the resident’s concerns and a quality control inspection on 16 May 2024 in its records suggests it met its commitment to arrange one. No records are provided about this or its actions, such as discussions with the cleaning contractor, though. This comes across as potentially over-relying on the contractor to resolve the issue rather than monitoring the issue itself. This is not entirely satisfactory since it said at stage 1 that it would monitor the service going forward.
29. However, the landlord was clearly responsive to the issue and did invite the resident to let it know if there were any further issues after its actions. It is not evident that he responded or raised issues with the cleaning to the landlord in the months after the stage 2 response. This suggests that the landlord reasonably resolved the communal cleaning issues at that time. This leads us to find reasonable redress about the cleaning.

30. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. These reflect our Complaint Handling Code.
31. The landlord provided an acknowledgement and response at stage 1 in line with its policy and our Code. However, it took 10 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 and then 28 working days to provide a stage 2 response. This was not in line with its policy and our Code. However, the landlord acknowledged, apologised and provided £40 compensation for these issues. This was reasonably proportionate and so the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The evidence is unclear at many points, including for if and when fly tipping was removed from the bin store, actions said to have been taken for issues, and estate visits and quality control inspections.
33. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, that a landlord has followed its own policies and procedures, or that a landlord has responded reasonably.
34. The landlord could reflect on these issues and consider what action it can take to ensure its records are accurate and detailed, for its own investigations as well as ours.

Communication

35. The landlord was positive to acknowledge issues with its communication in the complaint. The landlord could reflect on these issues and ensure that it has sufficiently learned from this in its day-to-day service delivery.

Handling of fly tipping reports

36. The landlord could reflect on what issues with its processes, staff training or contractors are preventing logged requests from being progressed in a timely way. This could include whether sufficient information (such as location of fly tipped items) is obtained or invited from residents at the point requests are logged.