Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Newlon Housing Trust (202117358)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117358

Newlon Housing Trust

30 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports about personal items being left in communal areas of the building.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, which is a flat under a shared ownership lease.
  2. On 29 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the fire marshals were not fulfilling their role in the building. Residents were leaving umbrellas in the corridor to dry. This was blocking fire exits in the building. The landlord was not taking action to have the umbrellas removed. This complaint was initially included within a separate set of complaints to the landlord. These other matters are not the subject of this investigation report as they have been dealt with separately by the landlord. The landlord engaged with the resident following her complaint and agreed it would make the estates team aware and communicate with residents. As a result, the resident withdrew her complaint.
  3. Between February and July 2021, the landlord sent out two text messages to all residents. This stated that residents were not to leave any personal items in the communal areas. It also advised that in doing so, they caused a fire risk. This could obstruct their exit from the building in the event of an emergency. During this time, the resident reported to the landlord that personal items were still left in the corridors. She requested for the landlord to take positive action against the repeat offenders.
  1. On 27 July 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She stated there had been no improvement in the landlord’s response to residents leaving personal items in the corridors. This continued to obstruct the corridors and exits within the building.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response told the resident that it was using TORT stickers placed on personal items in communal areas, telling residents to remove the items within seven days otherwise the landlord would remove them. The landlord accepted that this action did not always work as residents would put the items back. It stated it would refer these residents to its enforcement team. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint, as she did not feel the landlord had taken the necessary action to resolve her complaint.
  3. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, it stated that it would continue to use the TORT process, giving seven days’ notice before the removal of items. However, if items posed a severe risk to health and safety, it agreed to remove these items within 24 hours of being identified. The landlord also stated it would take further action for repeat offenders. This would include writing to them. Also, it would remove all personal items placed outside a second time immediately.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 January 2022. Her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide a long-term resolution to residents causing obstructions in corridors and blocking exits thereby posing a risk to fire safety in the building.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policy and Procedures

  1. Within its estate management policy and procedure, the landlord describes it process to removing items from communal areas. It states if an estate inspector finds any items in the communal area, they must follow the process below:
    1. Place a notice on any items, giving the resident seven days to remove it.
    2. Log details the item’s description and photographs.
    3. After seven days, the area will be checked again, and if the item has not been removed, then an external contractor will be instructed to conduct the removal.
    4. A TORT notice will be left as near as possible to where the item was removed from.
    5. The external contractor will then keep the item for a maximum of 21 days. The resident must pay £50 for it to be returned. If no payment is made within this time, then an instruction will be passed to the contractors to dispose of the item.
  2. Within this same policy the landlord states it will carry out inspections at least monthly. It states it will remove bulk refuse within 7 days and hazardous waste within 24 hours.
  3. Within the landlord’s complaint policy, it states that it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. It will then provide its stage one complaint response with ten working days of receipt of the complaint. It will acknowledge a request to escalate a complaint to stage two within two working days. It will provide its stage two complaint response within 20 working days of receipt, requesting the complaint be escalated. At both stages it states it will inform the resident if it needs to extend its time to respond. This will be no longer than a further ten working days.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident first reported her complaint to the landlord on 29 November 2020. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within two working days and provided its first initial response to this matter within 17 working days. The landlord should have responded with ten working days. In line with its complaints policy. If it took longer to provide its response, then it should have informed the resident of this. As part of its first stage complaint response however, the resident agreed to withdraw this complaint. This was because the landlord provided a response that satisfied the resident. As this complaint was resolved by the landlord through its complaints process, it has not been included in the Ombudsman’s investigation of the more recent complaint about similar issues. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about personal items being left in communal areas of the building.

  1. The landlord communicated to all residents in the building via a text message on 10 February 2021. This informed residents not to store personal items in communal areas. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February stating that she was unhappy. The landlord had taken 49 days to carry out its communication to residents. The landlord has provided no explanation to this service why it took 49 days to send out a message to residents. This should have been conducted sooner, and at least within 28 days of the resident notifying the landlord that items were still being left in communal areas.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident had reported this matter again. It responded to her on 4 March 2021 that it was trying to use its estate inspectors to resolve the problem. It asked the resident to provide information she had about offending properties so it could act. The landlord told the resident that it would take further action upon receiving any reports. Its estate inspectors were also conducting regular patrols. The landlord’s approach to using its inspectors was a proportionate response. Although, the Ombudsman can understand why the resident did not wish to provide the details of the offending neighbours this was a reasonable request for the landlord to make as the landlord could not take action against individuals without knowing who was responsible. Whilst the estate inspectors could also report any activity they witness, they could not comment on anything that happened when they were not there, and they could only attend the estate for limited periods of time. It showed a willingness to communicate with residents and to take positive action based on eyewitness evidence provided.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again in April 2021. She stated that five months had passed and there had been no improvement. The landlord then sent another text message to residents on 26 July 2021. This included it asking residents to report offenders who leave personal items in corridors and cause obstructions. It advised them that its enforcement team would then act. This was a positive response from the landlord and showed it was seeking to identify those responsible so it could take further action against individuals if appropriate.
  4. On 28 July 2021, the resident reported the fire wardens were not doing regular patrols of the building. She saw a fire warden look at a pile of boxes outside a property and ignore it. The next day the landlord told the resident it would pass her concerns to the estate team. The resident replied that she wanted the landlord to record this as a stage one complaint. There were slight delays of a few days in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the complaint but overall, the delays were not significant.
  5. The landlord has provided evidence that it conducted checks of the corridors in the building. It had been knocking on resident’s doors and immediately to requesting the removal of items. The landlord did, however, recognise that some residents put personal items back in the corridors after, causing the problem to persist. It also identified that some items left during the most recent period were left by its own contractors. The landlord sent a further text message warning residents they faced a £50 fine for any items it seized if they wanted them back. It updated its approach to the resident in its stage one complaint response. The landlord in this instance, had acted appropriately by taking this action to seek to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord should, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have acted sooner. It was not right that the resident waited since November 2020 for the positive enforcement action to take place. It should have adapted and taken this approach much sooner. There was a service failure in its communication in in how long it has taken to improve its processes. However, in all the circumstances the landlord has acted reasonably, and its final complaint response has provided a reasonable remedy for the service failures identified. In addition to improving its response, taking positive action to repeat offenders, it also offered an apology to the resident for recognising it could have done more, sooner in responding to the resident’s concerns. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our service’s approach . Had the landlord not recognised its own failure, this service would have ordered similar steps to that taken by the landlord in line with its own policies and procedure, in particular in reference to its record keeping and taking positive action against repeat offenders.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling and communication of the resident’s reports about personal items being left in communal areas of the building.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should send continue to send text message communication warning residents not to leave personal items in the communal areas, highlighting the risks and that a £50 fine will be issued for the return of any items seized. This should be a regular and consistent message every 28 days as part of its enforcement action.