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

Cambridge City Council (202337027)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337027

Cambridge City Council

8 November 2024


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 concerns regarding waste in the neighbour’s garden.

Background

2.             The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house. The neighbour is a tenant of the landlord, and their garden is next to the resident’s garden and is separated by a fence.

3.             On 3 September 2021 the resident reported seeing 3 asbestos vans and warning signs outside the neighbour’s house. She said she was concerned about panels being broken up and thrown into a skip in the neighbour’s garden. The landlord investigated this matter the same day and confirmed that its contractor was working at the neighbour’s property, and it had not found any hazardous materials in this skip.

4.             Between September 2021 and November 2021 the resident reported that she felt her neighbour was running a waste business from their property. The resident explained she had seen the neighbour filling their skip with wood and concrete and they had taken delivery of fridges and stored them in their garden. She added that she was concerned about the possible health and safety implications of storing and processing waste. On 8 November 2021 the landlord inspected the neighbour’s garden and found a ‘big’ pile of broken concrete slabs, used paint pots and other items.

5.             On 11 August 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said her neighbour had been running a waste business from their garden for some time and was continuing to take delivery of skips filled with rubbish, which they kept in their garden. She added that in October 2021 the landlord said it would monitor the situation, but it had not acted to resolve the matter. In addition, she provided photographs of various waste items in the neighbour’s garden.

6.             On 24 August 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:

  1. The photographs the resident provided were useful and it agreed that regularly storing such materials in their garden was not acceptable.
  2. It had inspected the neighbour‘s property in November 2021 and did not find materials like the ones shown in the photographs.
  3. Following this visit the neighbour confirmed they were clearing the items from their garden and found no materials that would cause concern.
  4. In other inspections it found no further materials and ceased conducting visits at the end of February 2022.
  5. It would conduct visits to inspect the neighbour’s garden on an unannounced basis, every week for the next two months.
  6. It would visit the neighbour to question them about the use of their property and provide the resident with regular updates.

7.             In October 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour’s waste business had resumed and explained that she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to her concerns. She said she had asked the landlord to stop this activity for the last 3 years, but it would only respond to her concerns when she involved her local councillor or raised a complaint. She felt its response was ineffective and wanted the issue immediately inspected when reported. She added that the landlord’s inspections only provided a snapshot and were not adequate to determine the safety of the neighbour’s waste. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to stop the neighbour’s waste business activity.

8.             On 16 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:

  1. Following its stage 1 response it visited the area weekly for 2 months, and then bi-weekly for 4 months.
  2. During this period, it found no evidence that the neighbour was conducting a waste processing business from their property.
  3. At times, the neighbour had stored waste in their garden which it had worked with them to have removed.
  4. The neighbour used skips for this process and confirmed it was their waste.
  5. The photographs the resident provided evidenced waste in the garden but not a waste processing business.
  6. If the resident provided evidence of a waste processing business like adverts for sale or the delivery of waste to the garden it would review this case again.
  7. It would inspect the area again before the end of November 2023.

9.             In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said her neighbour was using their garden to operate a waste business and they would store items such as white goods and rubbish bags for several weeks. She was also concerned that the waste could be a health and safety risk and felt she could not use her garden. Further, she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response which she felt had suggested she film her neighbour’s activity. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to take effective action to stop her neighbour from using their garden to store, process and sell waste.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        This Service notes the resident stated that she had reported this matter to the landlord for the last 3 years. However, under paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 11 August 2022, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling from September 2021 when regular reports started to be made up to the landlord’s final response in November 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding waste in the neighbour’s garden.

11.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
  2. Put things right.
  3. Learn from outcomes. 

12.        The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure 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 then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

13.        The tenancy agreement states that residents must ensure that they do not cause or behave in such a way as to be likely to cause a nuisance annoyance or disturbance to anyone in the locality. It provides the dumping of rubbish as an example of this. It states that residents must keep garden areas neat and tidy and adds that residents must remove rubbish or unwanted items from their gardens. It also states that residents must not run a business from home unless they have written permission from the landlord to do so.

14.        Although the tenancy agreement does not set out what type of actions the landlord will take in response to the above, this Service has assessed the complaint on whether the landlord adequately investigated the issues and took appropriate and proportionate action based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

15.        Following the resident’s initial September 2021 report the landlord acted promptly and investigated the matter the same day. Given the resident’s health and safety concerns, this was appropriate. Furthermore, it updated the resident on the outcome and visited her shortly afterwards to check her well–being. During this visit, the landlord found no evidence of waste in the neighbour’s garden. Again, this was appropriate, and the landlord acted fairly in response.

16.        Subsequently in October 2021 the resident again reported a skip in her neighbour’s garden. She said they were storing various waste items such as fridges and felt they were operating a waste processing business. In response, the landlord inspected the neighbour’s garden on 8 November 2021 and found a series of waste items that needed removing. However, it is unclear what, if any, action it took next. While the landlord’s stage 1 response suggested it reinspected the neighbour’s garden sporadically between November 2021 and February 2022, this Service has seen no evidence to confirm this. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping and a recommendation is made below.

17.        The landlord records indicated it had previously ‘run a check’ to see whether a business was registered at the neighbour’s property. However, this Service has seen no evidence to reconcile this. Although the landlord appeared to inspect the resident’s garden intermittently over a couple of months there is no evidence that it carefully considered this allegation. Given this would have likely constituted a breach of tenancy, it should have done so, and the landlord missed an early opportunity to investigate this thoroughly.

18.        Nevertheless, the evidence showed that the resident made no further reports of this nature until August 2022. This time she provided photographs of numerous waste items in the neighbour’s garden and again reiterated that she thought they were operating a waste business. In response, the landlord inspected the neighbour’s garden weekly from 25 August 2022 up to 14 September 2022, where it found the garden, on each occasion, to be in a ‘reasonable’ condition.

19.        While this was an appropriate and proportionate approach, the landlord did not keep to its stage 1 commitment of weekly visits for 2 months. Further, its records showed that it agreed to conduct monthly visits for another 6 months, however, there was no evidence that it did this. Moreover, on 23 September 2023, it completed a tenancy audit of the neighbour’s property where it found 2 fridge freezers and a unit in their garden. Although it was satisfied that the neighbour was not running a waste business, it found they were not keeping their garden ‘neat and tidy’ per the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the landlord should have continued to monitor the situation as agreed.

20.        Furthermore, the landlord’s records suggested it informed the resident in November 2022 that it would reduce its inspections to monthly. However, it did not appear to inspect the neighbour’s garden again until July 2023, 8 months later when it found ‘white goods’ stored. These were failings on the landlord’s part as the resident was entitled to believe it would keep to its commitments. While this Service recognises that the landlord was trying to deal with the matter sensitively, it should have considered, given the evidence available if it needed to take further action in this case. This demonstrated a lack of lateral thinking on the landlord’s part who continued to take the same approach, despite the situation reoccurring.

21.        Nonetheless, these issues were intermittent, and the evidence indicated that when the landlord inspected the neighbour’s garden, they often cleared their waste within a reasonable timescale. This Service notes that a large element of the complaint related to allegations that the neighbour was running a waste business. However, the landlord having audited the property and carried out frequent inspections was satisfied that this was not the case and that the waste stored did not pose a health and safety risk. Although this audit should have happened sooner there is no evidence to dispute the landlord’s findings and its approach in this respect was reasonable and proportionate.

22.        In the resident’s referral to this Service, she felt the landlord had suggested in its final response that she film her neighbour’s activity, which she was unhappy about. The landlord’s final response said, “If you are able to provide any evidence that does prove there is a waste processing business, such as adverts for items for sale or the delivery of waste to the garden we would be happy to review it again”. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concerns about obtaining this type of evidence this was a reasonable request, and it was fair for the landlord to seek evidence that could confirm the resident’s claims.

23.        Notwithstanding this, there were minor failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter. While it is considered that these failings would have had little adverse effect and unlikely changed the overall outcome, the landlord did not always act fairly in this case. This would have caused frustration to the resident who felt the landlord was not effectively addressing her concerns. In addition, this Service acknowledges that the landlord found waste items in the neighbour’s garden again in October 2023 and the resident reports that the situation remains ongoing. In view of this, the landlord should consider if any alternative action is needed. The landlord should therefore provide an action plan setting out its position and an order is made below for remedy.

Determination

24.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding waste in the neighbour’s garden.

Orders

25.        The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:

  1. Provide an action plan to the resident and this Service, outlining the steps it will take to investigate the resident’s concerns. The action plan should set out its position and consider if any alternative action is needed.

Recommendation

26.        The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).