Tamworth Borough Council (202207084)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207084

Tamworth Borough Council

28 November 2022

 

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for its debris removal recharge to her after she left her former property to be withdrawn.

Background

  1. The resident is a former tenant of the landlord of a flat with a garden, and her tenancy of the property was terminated on 24 October 2021.
  2. On 23 September 2021, the resident gave the landlord four weeks’ notice to terminate her tenancy of the property. On the next day, it confirmed to her that this would expire on 24 October 2021, and that the property and garden must be left empty of all rubbish and other items or she would be recharged by it for their removal. The resident therefore arranged on 25 September 2021 for the removal of bulky waste items from the property’s garden by another local authority on 4 October 2021, which they subsequently confirmed that they had completed. Although the landlord’s void pre-inspection of 4 October 2021 stated that she should be recharged for items including the disposal of her rubbish and external garden clearance costs, of which it obtained photographs.
  3. The landlord therefore issued an invoice to the resident for recharges applicable to her former property on 26 October 2021, following its inspection and then the end of her tenancy there. This stated that a total of £628.74 was payable in relation to repairs as well as clearing out rubbish in and around the garden areas of the property. The resident subsequently disputed the charges on 1 November 2021, stating that nothing was left in the property or the garden areas, as she had arranged for a bulky waste pick-up before vacating the property, for which she provided it with emails and photographs to evidence, although she suggested that fly-tipping may have occurred in the area instead.
  4. On 17 November 2021, the landlord agreed to drop the repair and other recharges to the resident, following its investigation of these. However, it continued to recharge her £303 to clear garden debris and provide a skip for the rubbish at the property when its void team had attended there, for which it still held her responsible. The resident’s subsequent stage one complaint of 7 February 2022 nevertheless suggested that the evidence that she had provided to the landlord demonstrated that she had arranged for the waste that had been left there to be collected. She also suggested that the debris and rubbish that it was recharging her for may instead have been from its works to the property above hers at the time that she was moving out.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 16 February 2022 highlighted, however, that the remaining recharges were not for the items removed from the property that the resident had organised prior to vacating this. It instead explained that these were for waste left within the vicinity of the voids team, which constituted the removal costs.
  6. The landlord therefore upheld the recharges for removal of the waste, reaffirming that the resident would be responsible for any waste left at or damage to the property until the end of the notice period, as it had previously advised her. It responded to her subsequent final stage complaint of 16 February 2022 stating that her evidence disputed the presence of the waste at the property by reiterating its previous position in its final stage complaint response of 25 April 2022.
  7. The resident then complained to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s outcome to her complaint. She wished for it to withdraw all of the recharges, contesting its conclusion that she had left any rubbish at the property. The resident also informed this Service that the recharges had impacted her mental health and well-being, leaving her feeling that the landlord had not done anything appropriate to resolve the issue, later querying whether it had considered if any rubbish that it had found had been fly-tipped, as she had previously suggested to it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the recharges has affected her mental health and wellbeing. While this Service does not doubt her comments, we cannot determine liability or award damages for impacts on health and wellbeing, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that this situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirmed that she agreed to leave the property clean and tidy, and that the landlord would recharge her if it had to clean this. She was also required to remove all rubbish, personal furniture and belongings from inside and outside of the property, or these would be disposed of and she might be recharged by it for this.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s recharge procedure and prompts, it states that, following receipt of a notification to end a tenancy, it will visit the property and carry out a pre-termination inspection. The resident will then be advised of any potential cleaning or repair charges. The landlord must obtain photographic evidence of any charges applying to the tenancy, as well as a copy of the void works report including job codes for the resident. It is then required to send a letter to the resident containing an itemised breakdown of all costs and re-charges applied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for its debris removal recharge to her after she left her former property to be withdrawn

  1. The resident notified the landlord that she intended to vacate the property on 23 September 2021. It was required, in line with its recharge procedure and prompts and her tenancy agreement, to inform her of the tenancy end date, with details on how to leave the condition of the property. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord confirmed this to the resident on 24 September 2021, informing her that the tenancy would expire on 24 October 2021. It explained that the property must be left in a clean and empty condition, both inside and outside, with any failure to clear rubbish or remove personal possessions resulting in her being responsible for the cost of their removal.
  2. The landlord attended the property to undertake its void pre-inspection there on 4 October 2021. It found that, in order to conduct the void works at the property, cleaning had to be carried out and the removal of rubbish in the vicinity had to be completed. In line with the landlord’s recharge procedure and prompts, it obtained photographs of damage and rubbish in support of this and itemised the recharges. The landlord then further followed its obligations under the procedure and prompts by sending a letter to the resident on 26 October 2021, which detailed and broke down the original recharge cost to her of £628.74 for the removal of waste and repairs at the property.
  3. The landlord also followed its contractual obligations because, in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, it was permitted to recharge her as she was responsible for the property’s condition until the end of her tenancy on 24 October 2021, of which she had been informed prior to vacating this. She subsequently contacted it from 1 November 2021 to dispute all of the recharges, as she submitted photographs and emails to highlight that she had left the property in a reasonable and clean condition, arranging a bulky waste collection on 4 October 2021. The resident also informed the landlord fly-tipping may have left waste at the property instead of her.
  4. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord reconsidered the recharges and reduced these to £303 from 17 November 2021 for it to clear garden debris and provide a skip for the rubbish left at the property when its void team attended there. It went on to suitably explain that these did not apply to what the resident had arranged to be collected, but rather the remaining waste left on the premises upon the void team’s arrival on 4 October 2021. The landlord highlighted that this was because she was responsible for this until her tenancy ended on 24 October 2021. It therefore acted in line with its recharge procedure and prompts, as it had additionally previously informed her of this on 24 September 2021.
  5. It is of concern that the resident reported that the remaining waste that the landlord found at the property may have been due to fly-tipping or to its works to the property above hers at the time that she was moving out. However, her tenancy agreement still made her responsible for the waste there until her tenancy ended on 24 October 2021, and there is also no evidence that the debris noted in its void pre-inspection and photographs was from another source, which meant that it was permitted to recharge her to clear this.
  6. It is additionally concerning that the resident’s final stage complaint of 16 February 2022 was responded to by the landlord on 25 April 2022, which was 46 working days later and therefore outside of this Service’s complaint handling code’s 20-working-day response timescale for final stage complaints. While the landlord’s tell us policy and procedure permitted it to respond to such complaints within 63 days, it was required to comply with and assess itself against the code. It is nevertheless noted that it is now reviewing its policy and procedure and self-assessing against our code to ensure that it is complying with this, and so it has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs to ensure that they do so in the meantime.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for its debris removal recharge to her after she left her former property to be withdrawn.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of this Service’s complaint handling code, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, in order to ensure their compliance with this, including with regard to final stage complaint response timeframes.