Abri Group Limited (202230579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230579

Abri Group Limited

25 June 2024

Amended 2 July 2025

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 handling of the resident’s reports of other residents leaving bulk refuse in the communal bin store, and the associated costs being added to the communal service charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme. The landlord is a housing association. This is a one-bedroom flat and there are no resident vulnerabilities noted.
On 20 February 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a yearly rent and service charge summary for the following financial year (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022). The yearly service charge would be £582.48, which included a yearly charge of £7.94 for rubbish removal per resident per year.
The landlord carried out monthly inspections of communal areas in the resident’s block from January 2021 until January 2022. It has a grading system from A to D, with ‘A’ being the highest grade. Throughout this 12-month period, the landlord graded ‘fly tipping’ between A and C (with 11 months scoring an ‘A’ or ‘B’).
The landlord raised jobs to remove furniture and household items from the bin store on the following dates:
1. 14 April 2021. This was attended to by its contractor on 19 April 2021 and the landlord was invoiced £324.00.
2. 7 September 2021. This was attended to on 20 September 2021 and the landlord was invoiced £232.20.
3. 4 October 2021. This was attended to on 25 October 2021 and the landlord was invoiced £309.60.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord provided a yearly rent and service charge statement to the resident for the following financial year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023). The charge for rubbish removal had increased to £31.83 per resident per year.
The landlord carried out further monthly inspections of the communal areas from February 2022 to October 2022. The landlord graded ‘fly tipping’ as grades ‘A’ or ‘B’ on each monthly inspection.
The landlord raised further jobs to remove household items from the bin store on the following dates:
1. 15 February 2022. The contractor attended on 16 February 2022 and the landlord was invoiced £352.80.
2. 11 May 2022. The contractor attended on 13 May 2022 and the landlord was invoiced £741.60.
3. 20 June 2022. The contractor attended on 22 June 2022 and the landlord was invoiced £496.80.
4. 27 August 2022. The contractor attended on 6 October 2022 and the landlord was invoiced £417.60.
The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 6 September 2022. It said the bin stores were in poor condition due to misuse and fly tipping. It advised that the council would not remove the bins if items were “dumped” on the floor. It told residents that bulky waste and electricals should not be placed inside the bin or bicycle stores at any time and that residents should take these items to the local recycling centre.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 October 2022 to advise it that the communal bin store door was broken, as the refuse collectors had “smashed” the bins into it when removing rubbish. He said he had fixed most of the fallen parts of the bin store slats himself, but it had broken again.
The landlord responded on the same day, asking for the precise location of the bin store so it could raise a job to have this repaired.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2022, saying that he did not want to be charged for additional bulk waste removal because other occupiers were causing this, and he had not contributed to the bulk waste. He sent photos of bulk waste in the bin store and said he did not know why the bin store door had “taken years to fix”.
The landlord responded on 15 November 2022. It said that bulk items left in the bin store would be charged back to the block as per its policy, unless the resident had evidence of who “dumped them” so that it could bill the residents who were dumping the waste individually. In respect of the bin store door, it said it was monitoring the job and asked again for the location of the damaged slats, so it could log this job.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022. He said the following:
1. He should not be charged for other residents putting bulk waste in the bin store. This should not be charged back to the block, as per the landlord’s service charge policy, which states that the block will be charged for bulk waste removal, unless the landlord has evidence of who dumped the items, so it can bill the perpetrators individually.
2. There is closed circuit television (CCTV) available so the landlord should be aware when residents breach their contracts, because occupancy agreements state what can and cannot be put in the bin store.
3. He asked for the CCTV to be examined and for appropriate tenants to be charged for leaving bulk waste in the bin store. He wanted to know when this would be done.
4. He declined to pay extra charges due to “irresponsible management”.
The landlord logged the complaint on 22 November 2022. It told the resident it would be acknowledged by the next working day. It said it had passed his complaint about the bin store charges to its colleagues in another team, who would respond within 5 working days.
The landlord internal communication of 22 November 2022 said that its CCTV did not capture the bin store, and as the resident gave no specific dates for the most recent dumped rubbish, it could not check for the most recent incident. It said it had already identified some tenants incorrectly dumping rubbish and written to them and the block as a whole.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2022 to acknowledge his complaint. It provided a contact name and telephone number of the staff member investigating the complaint. It also tried to call him but was not able to reach him by telephone.
The internal email correspondence of 7 December 2022 shows that the landlord asked a colleague in the repairs team if it could do anything about altering the service charges, due to the events around the complaint. The repairs team responded that this was a “housing issue” and not a repair, so it could not make any decision on this matter.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to remove bulk waste from the bin store, including a mattress, bed frame and other miscellaneous items.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 16 December 2022, advising of the correct usage of the communal bin store. It said that it was constantly in poor condition, due to misuse of rubbish bags, incorrect bin usage and fly tipping items on the floor. It advised that the council would not remove any bins if items were “dumped” on the floor. It told residents not to place bulk waste in the bin store or bicycle store at any time and to take these items to the local recycling centre.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 December 2022. It called him to advise it would not be upholding his complaint as it could not identify the alleged perpetrators of the fly tipping, so costs would be split between all residents in the block. It also responded in writing. It said the following:
1. It did not uphold the complaint.
2. If the resident had been able to evidence and identify the person responsible, the landlord could then charge the individual.
3. The CCTV was working but was not monitored live. The resident would need to provide the time and date of the incidents for the landlord to obtain any footage.
4. It was legally limited to what action it could take on individuals in respect of littering.
5. If damage was being caused to the bin store, it would report this to the police as a crime in certain circumstances if it could identify the individual concerned.
6. It was difficult to identify any individual without knowing the time/date the incidents occurred as the CCTV is only monitored retrospectively.
7. Following the resident’s report of disposed bulk items, the landlord had arranged for its grounds maintenance team to attend and remove within 24 hours.
8. The costs of removal would be split between all residents and would be reflected in the service charges for the following financial year.
9. Service charges are applied and charged to residents, on an arrear’s basis. Service charges for this current period would be calculated and adjusted accordingly when the resident received his rent/service charge setting in February 2023, based on services provided. Any services that had not been carried out would be taken into consideration and would be reflected in this.
10. The grounds maintenance team would dispose of the items within 24 hours.
11. The resident could escalate his complaint to a stage 2 if he was unhappy with the outcome. This would be carried out by a senior colleague or by a panel of resident peers if the resident preferred.
12. It could contact this Service at any point during his complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint to a stage 2 on the same day, via telephone as he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to continue charging him for fly tipping caused by other residents.
The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 December 2022. It sent him an acknowledgement letter on the same day, via email. It said it would try to resolve the complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s offices were closed from 23 December 2022 to 3 January 2023 for the festive break.
The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2023, regarding the communication issues in respect of his complaint. He later withdrew this, as the landlord agreed to respond to this aspect in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord called the resident on 17 January 2023. It explained the timescales for a stage 2 complaint response, advising it was due for resolution by 25 January 2023. It said it may take a further 10 days but would update the resident by 25 January 2023 in any case.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 January 2023. It called him to advise that his complaint was not upheld and sent him a final resolution letter. In its letter, it said the following:
1. It was satisfied that the resident’s stage 1 complaint had been handled correctly and within its policy. It aimed to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and sometimes needed a further 10 days. It apologised that it did not make the resident aware of the extension needed for its stage 1 complaint response.
2. In its phone calls with the resident on 17 and 18 January 2023, the resident had asked the landlord to look at the CCTV and identify the “culprits” in respect of others dumping bulk rubbish in the bin store and the costs being added onto all other block occupants’ service charges. He asked for the costs to be removed, and going forward, not to be charged.
3. The CCTV was in the communal stairwells and front entrances of the block only. There was no CCTV around the bin store. It could look at the CCTV if it was given the time/date, but it could not guarantee it could determine who was dumping the rubbish.
4. As outlined in the lease, the cost of waste removal is a serviceable charge and it was not able to remove this.
5. It had sent block letters out on 16 December 2022, advising residents of the correct usage of the bin store.
6. It apologised that the outcome was not what the resident was hoping for.
7. The resident could contact this Service if it was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
The resident contacted this Service on 5 March 2023. He complained about bulk rubbish being left in the communal bin store, particularly when residents were moving in/out. He complained that the landlord arranged the collection and removal of this rubbish but then distributed the charge to current residents. He said there was CCTV but that the landlord had told him to provide the evidence himself so that the landlord could invoice the correct people.
As an outcome to his complaint, the resident does not want to be charged for bulk rubbish left by others. He wants the landlord to “be responsible” and pay attention to who is leaving rubbish in the property.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The landlord had raised a job for bulk waste removal on 8 December 2022, but chased this again on 23 February 2023 as it had not been removed. It was removed on 28 February 2023, and the landlord was invoiced £986.40.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a yearly rent and service charge statement for the following financial year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024). The charge for rubbish removal had increased to £76.14 per resident per year. The actual spend on rubbish removal had been £71.16 per year per resident in the previous financial year, so the landlord adjusted the service charge accordingly.
The landlord has provided this Service with block inspection results from March 2023 to December 2023. It noted the following:
1. On 29 March 2023 – an urgent job was raised to remove furniture and other items from the front of the bin store.
2. On 7 July 2023 – It noted a sofa and miscellaneous items left in the bin store.
3. On 8 August 2023 – A complaint about the bin store was raised by another resident. The furniture and other items the landlord had noted in its July visit, had still not been removed. It raised a job for this to be cleaned and removed. It also noted that the bin store door was not locking shut so could be pushed open.
4. On 27 October 2023 – It noted a gaming chair had been left in the bin store. It raised a job for this and all past jobs which had not been attended to.
5. On 7 December 2023 – It noted lots of discarded rubbish, furniture and miscellaneous items in the bin store.
This Service called the resident on 12 June 2024. The resident advises that the issues with fly tipping persist and that there were furniture items left in the communal bin store up to the previous day, 11 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has raised concerns regarding the cost of his service charges, relating to bulk waste left in the communal bin store. He is concerned as he has not contributed to the bulk waste, but the landlord is charging the costs associated with the removal, back to the block. Although we understand the resident’s frustration, service charge costs are not something we can investigate. This because paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme) says that we may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider service charge complaints is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, this Service can investigate the landlord’s administration of the service charge, what service is being provided, how the landlord demonstrated the resident was receiving the service and whether the landlord used a reasonable method of assessing that the works had been completed. We can also look at how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about the quality of the service provided.

Landlord Obligations – policies and procedures

The resident’s occupancy agreement states that:
1. Leaseholders are responsible for service charges for all relevant expenditure.
2. Relevant expenditure includes all expenditure of the landlord in connection with the provision of services for the estate and any other costs the landlord incurs and deems necessary to carry out good estate management.
3. Leaseholders need to contribute to towards the costs incurred by the landlord in providing services, in the form of service charges.
The resident’s occupancy agreement goes on to say that:
1. Residents must not “form a rubbish dump” at the premises or anywhere on the estate. Residents must keep all rubbish and refuse in properly covered receptacles in the spaces designated by the landlord.
2. Residents must remove and clean any litter or disorder which they have created on any parts of the estate.
The landlord’s service charge procedure states that:
1. To calculate costs to a property, the service charge system divides the scheme cost for each cost type by the total number of properties.
2. Bulk rubbish removal is chargeable to all residents of a block.
3. Occasionally, large items are discarded by persons unknown. These have to be removed of and disposed of responsibly by the landlord.
The landlord’s estate management procedure states that:
1. It is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of its communal areas and that it fulfils its health and safety obligations. Communal areas include the bin store areas.
2. All communal areas of blocks of flats will be inspected monthly.
The landlord’s neighbourhood procedure, which was implemented in August 2023, after the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure states that:
1. It will clear items that have been fly tipped or abandoned in its communal areas. Where possible, it will identify the individuals responsible for the items and will charge them for the disposal.
2. In circumstances, where it is unable to identify the individuals responsible, the costs will be recovered via the service charge for the communal area customers.
3. It encourages residents to be proactive in identifying perpetrators of fly-tipping, to ensure the correct individual is charged and that it is not absorbed in the service charge. Ideally it requires evidence such as a photograph or video of the person dumping the rubbish.
4. If reliable evidence is not available, and the perpetrator denies the offence, it will make them aware of the possible consequences, should evidence be available in the future.
5. When it has a persistent and significant problem it will consider installing CCTV or using its neighbourhood improvement budget to make design changes to restrict use of these areas.
The landlord’s customer relations procedure states that complaints will be acknowledged within 24 hours or 1 working day, usually via email. It operates a 2 stage complaints process:
1. Stage 1 complaints – the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days. If it needs more time, it will contact residents to confirm this and explain why and agree how often it will keep them updated. It will not take more than an additional 10 days.
2. Stage 2 complaints – the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If it needs more time, it will contact the resident to confirm this and explain why and agree how often it will keep them updated. It will not take more than an additional 10 days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other residents leaving bulk refuse in the communal bin store, and the associated costs being added to the communal service charges.

It was appropriate that the landlord carried out monthly inspections of the communal block, including the bin store, and reported the bulk waste found for removal. This aligned with its policies and demonstrated an effort to ensure the block remained a safe and well-maintained place to live.
It was also appropriate that the costs for bulk waste removal were added to the communal service charge, in line with the landlord’s standard policies.
It was also reasonable that the landlord issued the resident with yearly service charge statements, including a generic breakdown of costs incurred and forecasted.
When the resident reported fly-tipping in the communal bin store, it was understandable that the landlord did not review its CCTV footage in detail. While it is reasonable for residents to expect investigations where possible, the landlord explained that it was unable to identify individuals due to technical limitations of the CCTV system and the absence of specific times or incidents. The landlord reasonably chose not to review extensive footage without clear indicators, which would have been disproportionate.
Although reviewing CCTV might have helped identify those responsible for the fly-tipping, the landlord’s approach—encouraging residents to report specific instances with dates and times—was within the bounds of its policy and capacity. The landlord was not unreasonable in requiring clearer evidence before allocating resources to investigate specific allegations.
The landlord took proportionate steps to address the issue by writing to all residents, reminding them of correct bin usage and warning against improper disposal. This was a reasonable step as no specific perpetrators were confirmed. Its action to contact all residents collectively was a fair way to address the issue without unjustly accusing individuals in the absence of evidence.
The landlord’s approach to resident communication and policy enforcement was within the scope of what would reasonably be expected. It sought to raise awareness and deter further issues without placing unfair blame, and acted within its technical and evidentiary constraints.
While the landlord did not initially install signage warning against fly-tipping, there is no requirement in policy or law for it to do so. Its commitment to updating existing signage to include warnings about fly-tipping and potential recharges goes beyond its basic obligations and is a positive step in addressing ongoing concerns.
Regarding the bin store door, the landlord acted in accordance with its repair policy. It carried out inspections, raised repair orders, and reinforced the door within the 90-day timeframe applicable for non-emergency work. Although the resident later raised concerns about the condition of the door, the landlord’s documented actions demonstrate that it responded appropriately to maintain security.
Furthermore, while non-residents may have contributed to the waste, the landlord has clarified that the majority of items were household in nature, making it more likely they were left by residents. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman understands the decision to pass the associated costs onto all residents as per policy.
The landlord has shown evidence of ongoing monitoring, monthly inspections, and compliance with its neighbourhood and estate management procedures. While the resident expressed concerns about the recurrence of fly-tipping, the landlord’s continued engagement and review of its bin store management practices show a sustained and reasonable effort to resolve the issue.
While the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and responded reasonably to the fly-tipping issue. There is a clear need for improved communication and clarity in handling residents’ concerns and evidencing its actions more thoroughly. Its failure to do so in its initial response to the residents’ legitimate concerns and through its internal complaints procedure caused unavoidable distress.
As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022, and this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 24 November 2022. This is outside of the landlord’s policy, which states that it will acknowledge complaints within 24 hours or 1 working day. This caused the resident stress and frustration in pursuing the issue.
Further, the landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 19 December 2022. It did not contact the resident within this time to let him know that it needed more time or to provide a response or to arrange a date to communicate with him, contrary to its customer relations procedure. The resident complained on 15 November 2022 and the landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response until 19 December 2022. This is 25 working days and considerably outside of the landlord’s own policy, particularly as it did not contact the resident within this time, to let him know that it needed more time. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue and stress and frustration, as well as impacting on the landlord/resident relationship.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, the landlord advised that it had abided by its policy in its stage 1 response and did not acknowledge that it had responded outside of its timelines. This is inappropriate and caused the resident additional stress and frustration.
As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other residents leaving bulk refuse in the communal bin store, and the associated costs being added to the communal service charges.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the following:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the bin store and bulk rubbish issue and the associated service charges.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Ensure the bin store door is secure at all times, and organise additional security in the event of any delays to repairs to the door.
4. Write to all residents in the block to remind them of their obligations in respect of the correct use of the bin store.
5. Review its management of its neighbourhood procedure, to ensure it considers all options to minimise residents leaving bulk waste in its bin stores. In particular, it should install appropriate signage to advise that fly tipping is a criminal offence and inform of the possible penalties.
6. In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should review the complaint handling failures in this case to determine what action has been or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these.
The landlord should write to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Conduct an immediate inspection of the bin store door to ensure the repairs are effective and meet the required standards.
If the bin store continues to be subject to damage or unauthorized access, consider involving the police to investigate any incidents of vandalism or unauthorized use.
The landlord should provide regular updates to residents regarding repair timelines to address perceptions of delays.
Consider the feasibility of installing improved CCTV coverage to monitor the bin store more effectively. If this is not possible, the landlord should clearly communicate its reasons to the residents.
Seek legal advice to determine whether it is reasonable and lawful to continue charging all residents for bulk waste removal, particularly in cases where the perpetrators cannot be identified.
If non-residents are confirmed to be responsible for waste issues in the future, the landlord should work with the local council or police to address the issue.
To improve transparency and trust, provide residents with a detailed breakdown of service charges, including costs associated with bulk waste removal and bin store repairs.