Islington Council (202227864)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227864

Islington Council

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Motorbikes parked inappropriately on the hardstanding around her block.
2. Building waste left by residents in the external communal areas and pathways.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a ground-floor flat. She says that she has reported motorbikes parked on the hardstanding immediately outside her block, next to her garden fence, since at least 2019.
On 30 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that there was a motorbike parked next to her fence. She identified the rider as the visitor to a specific neighbour’s property. As she had not received a response, she sent an email to the landlord’s complaints team on 2 August 2022.
The member of staff the resident had emailed responded to her email the following day. They explained that they had been off work due to illness. They asked another team to contact the resident’s neighbour about the allegations.
On 16 August 2022 the resident reported that a motorbike was parked in the same location. She said that the landlord had not updated her on her previous report. The landlord responded, saying it passed the information she provided to the relevant team, who may have spoken or written to the resident’s neighbour. It said it was investigating the possibility of installing dedicated motorbike parking on the estate, which may deter people from parking on the hardstanding. It also explained that the management of parking on the resident’s estate was due to be brought in-house, which should result in increased ticketing of inappropriately parked vehicles.
The resident reported further incidents of inappropriate motorbike parking on 3 occasions between October 2022 and January 2023. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 5 January 2023 saying it had marked out parking lines the day before and would begin patrolling the area the following week.
On 22 January 2023 and 8 February 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and asked for our support in making a complaint to her landlord. She said:
1. A motorbike was parked on the hardstanding the previous day.
2. People had frequently parked motorbikes near her fence, and her landlord had failed to resolve this, although she had identified at least one neighbour responsible.
3. The landlord wanted her to report incidents to its traffic enforcement team. She had already experienced retaliation and did not want to put herself in harm’s way.
4. She said she felt that the landlord allowed leaseholders on the estate to “do what they want”. She wondered if the landlord was not responding to her reports about the motorbike because the alleged perpetrator was a leaseholder.
5. She attached pictures of the communal areas outside her block, showing building materials. She said there was building work in 2 leasehold properties on her estate. They had thrown building materials into the communal area during the work.
Following contact from the Ombudsman about the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 29 March 2023. It did not uphold her complaint, saying:
1. It had taken substantial action to improve parking on the resident’s estate.
2. There had been a delay in implementing the traffic management order due to complications in applying line markings, but this was now in place, so it would issue penalty charge notices (a fine issued for contravention of parking regulations) to any unauthorised vehicles.
3. The resident had identified an alleged perpetrator of inappropriate parking. This had been passed to the relevant team, but the perpetrator’s identity was yet to be confirmed.
4. It gave the resident contact details she could use to report illegally parked vehicles, but she had said she was not comfortable doing this. Staff who saw illegally parked vehicles would report them.
5. The landlord did not have any record of the resident reporting concerns about the condition of communal walkways. It asked the resident to provide evidence of any reports she had made.
6. Since it received the resident’s concerns on 11 March 2023, it had visited the estate several times but not identified any issues. The caretaker would usually report any issues noted when they were on the estate. The caretaker had provided pictures of the estate that day, and it was in acceptable condition. The resident could report any issues she saw, and it would investigate these.
7. It offered the resident £25 in compensation for its delayed complaint response.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, saying:
1. She did not complain about the communal areas but she had sent photos. The resident attached further images, including one of people she said were leaseholders appearing to tamper with a lift panel.
2. She sent a further photo of a bike parked on the hardstanding, which she said was taken on 11 April 2023. She said a letter sent to residents on 13 January 2023 had been ineffective.
3. She disagreed that she should have to report inappropriate parking to the landlord, saying this was the landlord’s responsibility to manage.
The landlord sent the resident a response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 9 May 2023. It did not uphold her complaint, saying:
1. As a result of the images she had provided with her complaint escalation request, the landlord had increased its visits to the estate.
2. It was unable to tell her if it had taken any action against her neighbours due to data protection requirements.
3. The landlord could only begin the process of removing a motorbike after a penalty charge notice had been issued.
4. The resident was not happy to report violations of traffic restrictions. While the landlord patrolled the area, it also relied on information from the public. It would continue to monitor the resident’s estate.
5. Although the resident had identified an alleged perpetrator of inappropriate vehicle parking, the landlord was still required to follow its procedure. The first stage was to serve a penalty charge notice.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said:
1. The name and address it had used on its complaint response were incorrect. This was the 3rd occasion that the landlord had used incorrect details.
2. The landlord was “insistent” on focusing on communal areas, but her primary concern was the inappropriate parking of motorbikes.
3. The landlord told her that the picture of an inappropriately parked motorbike she provided on 20 April 2023 had been sent to the relevant team, but she had not heard anything since.
4. She said she did not accept that the landlord was patrolling, as the motorbike was parked next to her fence every day.
In May 2023, the resident made 5 further reports of a motorbike parked on the hard–standing to the landlord by email. On 24 May 2023, the landlord issued a resident with a penalty charge notice. On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident confirming that it had passed her report to the traffic enforcement team. It asked that she consider reporting inappropriate parking to them directly as this was faster and more effective. The resident responded, saying that as a vulnerable person, she preferred written communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord and said that she had not complained about building waste left in the communal areas. However, she has asked the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s handling of this issue in our investigation. As the landlord addressed the issue as an element of her complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process, it is within the scope of this investigation.

Inappropriate motorbike parking

The landlord’s caretaking quality assurance manual outlines the standards it aims to meet in its management of communal areas both within buildings, and externally. It commits to checking estate parking, including reporting abandoned or inappropriately parked vehicles twice a week.
The landlord also provided this investigation with its abandoned, nuisance and dangerous vehicles policy, which was written in 2012. While there is no set frequency for landlords to review their policies, it is common practice for landlords to review policies every 1-3 years, or when there are legislative changes. It is important to review policies frequently to make sure they are up to date, reflect current practices, and are being implemented correctly. We recommend that the landlord reviews this policy and any associated procedures to ensure they are fit for purpose.
The records seen as part of this investigation indicate that there were multiple communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to 2 emails the resident sent it in October and December 2022. After the resident raised this issue with the landlord, there is evidence that it failed to respond to 5 consecutive emails from the resident in May 2023. This was inappropriate, and led the resident to feel that the landlord wasn’t taking her concerns seriously.
On 9 May, the resident also told the landlord that it had either written her name or address wrong in correspondence on 3 occasions. After she told the landlord this, it sent a further incorrectly addressed letter. These were further communication failures which caused frustration for the resident and will have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord should ensure it accurately addresses correspondence to the resident in future.
The landlord’s decision to implement parking controls on the estate was an appropriate way to improve its parking management on the estate. However, the landlord could have been clearer with the resident about the process. For example, the landlord referred to the penalty charge process in correspondence, but it did not explain what this was. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident a full explanation of the process, including the steps it needed to take and the extent of the landlord’s legal abilities. It could also have told her the frequency of patrols. This would have managed her expectations.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord wrote that it was unable to tell the resident if it had taken any action against her neighbours for data protection reasons. This was not reasonable. The behaviour reported by the resident could be considered ASB. The chartered institute of housing says in its guidance for the effective management of ASB that landlords should keep complainants updated. It is possible to do so appropriately without breaching data protection regulations. If the landlord had been more transparent in this instance, it may have reassured the resident that it was taking appropriate action.
The landlord repeatedly asked the resident to report inappropriate parking to the parking enforcement team directly. She explained that she was reluctant to do this as she felt it was the landlord’s role, and said she was worried about recrimination. She also explained that due to communication difficulties, she had a preference for written communication. The landlord was correct in saying that, while it did patrol the area and address issues it identified, it may be able to respond to issues quicker if the resident reported them to the traffic enforcement team directly. As such it was reasonable for it to suggest that the resident made direct reports. However, it could have done more to mitigate her concerns, for example look into whether she could report to the traffic enforcement team by email or reassure her that any reports she made would be kept anonymous.
The resident sent the Ombudsman several images of inappropriately parked vehicles. On one occasion she told us she had not sent the image to the landlord as it had repeatedly failed to act on her reports. While the resident’s frustration at the continued inappropriate parking near her fence was understandable, the landlord was only able to respond to incidents it was aware of.
The resident provided the landlord with pictures of motorbikes parked on the hardstanding outside her block, next to her fence. Not all the pictures show the same vehicle. There is evidence that the landlord reviewed the photos to see if they contained identifying information but concluded that they did not. Due to the angle of the photos, the landlord was only able to identify a vehicle registration plate in one photo. The landlord considered whether it had any other way of establishing the identity of the rider in this case. This was an appropriate step, demonstrating that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, it concluded that, as it had never issued the driver with a penalty charge notice, it did not have the rider’s details on file. As such, it could not use the number plate to identify the rider. This was in line with its legal abilities.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our webpage, says that landlord’s records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. In this case, there were gaps in the landlord’s record keeping. For example, the landlord told the resident that it was investigating installing secure motorbike parking on her estate. This would have been a reasonable action by the landlord to encourage riders to park their motor bikes appropriately. However, there is no evidence of the outcome of these investigations, or that that the landlord updated the resident. This may have undermined her trust in the landlord. In future, the landlord should ensure that it gives specific, measurable timescales when it agrees an action. This manages residents’ expectations and enables them to hold their landlord accountable.
To fully investigate the resident’s concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to directly interview the neighbour who the resident told it was responsible for inappropriately parking their motorbike near her fence. While in its internal records the landlord said it would interview the resident’s neighbour, its records do not show if it did so, or what the outcome of any interview was. This was a further record keeping failure. The landlord would not have been able to share all details of its contact with the neighbour due to data protection but it could have provided reassurance that it had spoken to the neighbour and it would consider further action if required.
In an email to the resident, the landlord also told the resident that another team ‘may’ have written to or spoken to her neighbour. This was not reasonable. The landlord should have spoken to the relevant team so it could provide a definite answer. As the landlord’s records are unclear, we are unable to determine if it interviewed the neighbour. The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure its record keeping practices are robust.
The resident complained to the landlord that it treated tenants and leaseholders differently, saying that it was more lenient with leaseholders. The landlord did not address this with the resident, which was inappropriate, as it may have reinforced her worries. It should have outlined the responsibilities both residents and leaseholders have under their occupancy agreements and explained some of the enforcement action it could take against leasehold residents, where this is appropriate.
The resident disclosed medical conditions to the landlord and said in correspondence that she considers herself to be a vulnerable adult. As such the landlord should have spoken to the resident to discuss updating its records to this effect. There is no evidence it did so, and the landlord told this investigation that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The Ombudsman is aware that an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss adding this information to its records as part of another investigation carried out by this service. Therefore, we will not make any further orders to do so. The landlord should consider offering its staff refresher training to ensure that it consistently updates its records when residents disclose information about their personal circumstances that indicates vulnerability.
Cumulatively, the landlord’s errors in this case amount to maladministration. They caused the resident frustration and undermined her trust in the landlord. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £100 for its poor communication.
  2. £100 for its inadequate record keeping.
  3. £50 for the time and effort the resident has taken to pursue the issues and her complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our webpage, says that awards in this range are appropriate where there was a failure which has adversely impacted the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this and take steps to put things right.

Building waste left by properties in communal areas

In its caretaking quality assurance manual, the landlord commits to:
1. Removing lumber (non-refuse items that have been disposed of on estates) from internal and external areas daily.
2. Clean hard-standing, courtyards and paths 3 times a week, including removing or reporting bulk refuse.
The caretaking quality assurance manual says that it is the responsibility of the tenant or resident to leave their lumber in a designated collection point, and that any contractors residents employ to do building work must dispose of waste correctly, rather than leaving it on the landlord’s estate. The landlord will consider lumber left in non-designated areas to be fly-tipping, and an act of anti-social behaviour, which it says “could affect the perpetrators lease or tenancy”. The landlord employs quality assurance officers to carry out monthly estate inspections to monitor caretaking standards. Further inspections are carried out by resident inspectors and housing managers, but the handbook does not specify their frequency.
The landlord could not find any record of previous reports made by the resident about the poor condition of the communal areas. It asked her to provide it with evidence of any previous reports she had made. This was an appropriate step to ensure it had all relevant information.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to carry out additional checks of the estate and take pictures of the condition of the areas on that date to demonstrate that the condition was acceptable. The landlord acknowledged that its photos only showed the condition of the areas at the time the visits were carried out. It encouraged the resident to let it know if she saw any further incidences of inappropriate waste disposal. Although it was the landlord’s responsibility to identify any inappropriate waste disposal, it was reasonable to ask the resident to report issues if she saw them, as the landlord does not have a constant presence on the estate. If issues are reported by residents, the landlord can provide a quicker, targeted response. However, the resident is under no obligation report issues to the landlord if she does not wish to.
The resident provided photographs of the issues she was reporting. The photos show a large number of items left outside the door to the block. It is clear that the area is not a designated lumber point, so the landlord should have arranged to remove or report it, in line with its quality assurance manual. However, the resident’s photographs represent a moment in time, and it is unclear from the resident’s reports or the landlord’s records how long the items were left in this area, or who removed them. As such, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the landlord met the commitments made under its caretaking quality assurance manual to clean hardstanding 3 times a week, including removing or reporting bulk refuse. Going forward, it may be helpful for the landlord to keep a log of when the hardstanding is cleaned and make this log available to residents on a notice board or upon request.
The landlord should have investigated the resident’s reports that the rubbish was inappropriately disposed of by a specific resident through its ASB process. This would have been in line with its caretaking quality assurance manual. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation indicates that the resident shared the address of the alleged perpetrator with the landlord. The landlord could have used this information to investigate further. Had it done this, it may have decided to speak to or interview the alleged perpetrator directly and could ultimately have decided there was sufficient information for it to take enforcement action. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s reports under its ASB policy, or that it made any contact with the identified resident. This may have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
Similarly, when the resident provided pictures of men, who did not appear to be members of the landlord’s staff, appearing to tamper with a lift panel, she identified which residents she believed were responsible. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman or the resident with any evidence that it investigated this matter further. This was inappropriate, as it may have led to the resident feeling the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and concerns that it may happen again.
The landlord’s failure to investigate the matters as ASB was a service failure. To put things right for the resident, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failure to investigate her concern fully.
2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged a service failure, and the service failure caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of motorbikes parked inappropriately.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of improper waste disposal of building waste on her estate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in the report.
2. Directly pay the resident £350 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £100 for the landlord’s poor communication with the resident.
  2. £100 for the landlord’s inadequate record keeping.
  3. £50 for the time and effort the resident spent pursuing the complaint.
  4. £100 for its failure to investigate the resident’s report of improper waste disposal as anti-social behaviour.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its abandoned, nuisance and dangerous vehicles policy and any associated procedures to ensure they are up to date, reflects current practices, and are being implemented correctly by the landlord’s staff.
The landlord should consider offering its staff refresher training to ensure that it consistently updates its records when residents disclose information about their personal circumstances which indicates vulnerability.
The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.