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

Abri Group Limited (202234471)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234471

Abri Group Limited

28 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to remove waste from the area surrounding her home.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house. There is a footpath to the rear of the property.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to investigate her concerns about its response to waste collection on her estate on 22 August 2022. She said items had been fly tipped next to the footpath at the rear of her home.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 August 2022. It apologised that its grounds contractor had not cleared the waste. It said it had since brought grounds maintenance in house. It assured her it would clear the area.
  4. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not cleared the waste. She raised a stage 2 complaint on 16 January 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It told the resident that it had reviewed the Land Registry documents. It identified it did not own the land where the waste was located. It named the land owner and said it would be its responsibility to clear the waste. The landlord agreed to clear the footpath back to the boundary edge.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 11 September 2023. She was unhappy the landlord had not cleared the waste at the rear of her home after saying it would.
  7. After we notified the landlord of the resident’s escalation, on 14 June 2024 it apologised to the resident for poor communication and its delay in providing its stage 2 response. It offered her £250 compensation for the poor communication and £100 for the delay.
  8. The landlord conducted a site visit on 14 April 2025 and found no waste in the area next to the footpath.

Assessment and findings

Waste Removal

  1. The landlord’s neighbourhood procedure policy states that it will check communal footpaths during estate inspections. If it identifies fly tipping in communal areas its Estates Services Team will clear the area. It also says where it does not own communal land it will seek to establish ownership and report issues to the owner of the land.
  2. When the resident moved into her home in March 2022 she reported the waste at the rear of the property to the landlord. The evidence provided showed it raised a job with its grounds maintenance contractor but it did not attend or reply. In not chasing that up with its contractor it did not show it was effectively monitoring the situation.
  3. The resident reported the waste again on 11 July 2022. The landlord asked her to provide further information on 26 July 2022. She replied the next day and confirmed the waste was located behind several properties. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not respond or attend the area. The resident complained that the waste remained behind her home on 22 August 2022. The landlord considered this issue as part of her existing stage 1 complaint about bathroom repairs.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 31 August 2022 the landlord explained that it had raised an order to remove the waste in March 2022 but its contractor had not completed that action. It said its contract with its grounds maintenance contractor had ended in August 2022. It was bringing grounds maintenance activity in house. It agreed to collect the waste from behind the resident’s home within “a couple of weeks”. It awarded her a hamper as an apology which was proportionate to the time and trouble the resident spent chasing its response. However, as it was later identified that the landlord did not own the land next to the footpath where the waste had been fly tipped it would have been appropriate to have investigated that during the stage 1 complaint. That would have prevented it from raising the resident’s expectations that it would clear the waste.
  5. The landlord had raised a job with its Ground Maintenance Team during its stage 1 investigation, but it did not attend. The resident contacted to chase up the waste clearance on 29 September 2022. It raised another job on 6 October 2022. Later evidence suggests the landlord attended to assess the job around that time, but it did not record on what date or what the outcome of the inspection was. As it had assured the resident it would clear the waste it would have been appropriate to keep her updated.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 January 2023 to chase up the waste removal. She said it had attended the area months ago and told a neighbour it would clear the waste by the end of 2022. The landlord arranged for its Grounds Maintenance Team to attend on 6 January 2023. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 9 January 2023. She said its team had attended but left shortly after without collecting any of the waste. 
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2023. She chased up the landlord for updates about the waste removal in March and April 2023. It was not appropriate that it did not call her back in March 2023. It called her back on 25 April 2023 but it is not recorded what it told her.
  8. In May 2023, as part of its stage 2 investigation the landlord approached its Grounds Maintenance Team. It said it was recently advised the landlord did not own the land so it could not enter to clear the waste. It is unclear who gave that information to the Grounds Maintenance Team. The landlord checked with Land Registry and the documents showed the area next to the path was not within the bounds of its land. It identified who the land owner was. As the waste was near the boundary it completed further investigation with its solicitor. As the landlord needed to establish who held responsibility for clearing the area it was appropriate it sought legal advice.
  9. The landlord explained in its response on 5 June 2023 that it did not own the land next to the footpath. It said it had reviewed the Land Registry map. It identified that the footpath was within its land. It agreed to clear the footpath back to the boundary edge. It said it would ensure the footpath would form part of its general maintenance. It gave the resident information about who the land owner was. It told her she may want to contact the land owner or the local council about the waste. The landlord’s position that it could not clear the waste from the land it did not own was reasonable. However, as its neighbourhood procedure policy says it will report issues to other land owners it would have been appropriate to have contacted the land owner instead of putting the onus on the resident. Internal e-mails from June 2023 show it considered doing that but it did not follow up on that.
  10. Ultimately, as the waste was not on land owned by the landlord there was limited impact caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns. This is because it was unable to achieve the resident’s desired outcome of removing the waste. However, in not acting sooner to establish it did not own the land there has been service failure in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to remove waste from the area surrounding her home. Its delay meant that it raised the resident’s expectations when it agreed to remove the waste at stage 1 but could not complete that assurance.
  11. After being notified of the resident’s escalation to this Service the landlord reconsidered its failings 1 year after its stage 2 response in June 2024. It offered the resident £250 for its poor communication about the waste issues from January 2023. Under its complaints policy the landlord says it will award £200 to £300 when it considers its failings to have had a high impact on a resident. Where the Ombudsman makes a service failure determination, we would normally order a landlord to pay compensation of up to £100. As the £250 the landlord offered exceeds the £100 maximum amount, we would usually order for service failure it would not be proportionate to make further orders. However, it does not prevent the service failure determination because the landlord’s offer was only made after escalation to this Service.
  12. Following further contact from the resident the landlord confirmed with its Ground Maintenance Team in April 2024 that it had cleared the footpath back to the boundary edge. Further to that, in response to a query from this Service the landlord attended the area on 14 April 2025. It found the area had been cleared and provided photographs to show that. Although the issue is now resolved, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the land owner in line with its neighbourhood procedure policy should it become aware of further fly tipping on the land next to the footpath.

Complaint Handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, a landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. If the resident requires an escalation, it should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If a landlord cannot meet these timescales, it must inform the resident, explain the delay and set a new deadline. The new deadline should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was compliant with the Code.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about bathroom repairs on 19 August 2022. She asked it to also investigate her concerns about waste removal as part of that complaint on 22 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged her complaint within timescales on 24 August 2022. It also provided its stage 1 response within timescales on 31 August 2022.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint the same day. Under the Code it should have provided its response by 13 February 2023. It e-mailed the resident before then on 7 February 2023 to request an extension. It did not provide us with a copy of that e-mail so it is unclear what new deadline it set. The maximum extension allowed under the Code would have been 13 March 2023.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It was appropriate it apologised for the delay in responding. Given the length of the delay it would have been appropriate for it to have also offered compensation. The landlord put that right on 14 June 2024 when it offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 response As that offer came after escalation to this Service that does not prevent the Ombudsman’s determination that there was service failure in its complaint handling. As the £100 offered falls within the service failure banding of our remedies guidance no further orders are made.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to remove waste from the area surrounding her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £350 it offered her in June 2024 if it has not done so already. It should provide evidence it has made the payment within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord is notified about or identifies further fly tipped items on the land next to the footpath it should notify the land owner in line with its neighbourhood procedure policy.