Luton Borough Council (202234460)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234460

Luton Borough Council

7 March 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 queries about waste management charges.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property on a secure tenancy since 1998. The property is a maisonette on a residential street with a private garden and driveway. The landlord is a local authority.
3. In 2009 an additional charge for estate management was added to the resident’s rent account. She challenged it and, in 2011, the landlord removed the charge and refunded it. In 2014 the estate management charge and an additional waste management charge was added to the resident’s account. She queried this with the landlord in 2017 and March 2022 but received no response.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint about the waste management charge on 19 September 2022. The landlord responded on 3 October 2022 stating the charge was correct and paid for fly tipping and communal cleaning. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 9 November 2022, stating she does not receive any of these services as there are no communal areas and her neighbours do not have to pay it.
5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 November 2022, maintaining that the charges are correct.
6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she does not feel the landlord has looked into her complaint properly. She seeks removal of the charge and reimbursement.

Assessment and findings

7. In 2009 the landlord sent a letter to the resident advising a change in rent charge. It listed the amount of rent payable and also a service charge. It said the resident would pay the service charge if she was receiving services such as cleaning of communal areas, caretaking, wardens or communal gardening. The landlord specified in this letter that the resident would not be expected to pay service charges if such services were not provided.
8. While this was a number of years ago, it is important to note that this was the landlord’s position at that time, as it is relevant to the current complaint that the resident is expected to pay for services she does not receive. The result is ambiguity and a contradictory message to the resident, which is not fair or reasonable.
9. In 2011 the resident successfully challenged the landlord adding an estate management charge to her account. On 25 October 2011 the landlord wrote to her stating she should not have been charged for this and she was refunded. The fact that the charge has reappeared (and remains today), along with an additional waste management charge, has not been explained sufficiently to the resident. It is understandable the resident is confused that she is now being charged for something the landlord previously told her was incorrect. There is no evidence of the landlord advising the resident of the reasons for this or explaining its contradiction. This is unacceptable and unfair.
10. The resident says the charges were added to her account again in 2014. She said she queried it via the landlord’s website but was advised all residents had to pay it. She emailed the landlord in 2017, again querying why the charge was removed and refunded in 2011 but reappeared and remained since 2014. She said her parents are also council tenants and they have never been charged this. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord, which is unacceptable.
11. On 18 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord advising she was still being charged for waste management and she had “lost count” of how many times she had questioned this. She could understand such charges being levied in blocks of flats, but not for a maisonette on a street like hers. She reiterated that she was not receiving any waste management services from the landlord, as there were no communal areas to the property. Therefore, she could not understand why she was paying for it.
12. This was a reasonable concern for the resident to have, but there is no evidence the landlord responded with any explanation. The resident said she had a limited income due to chronic illness and this issue was causing her stress and she was “at the end of her tether.” The landlord should have provided an explanation of the charges. The fact it did not is unreasonable, unfair and amounts to service failure.
13. Following no reply to her contacts, the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 19 September 2022. The landlord responded on 3 October 2022, within its complaints policy timescale, but it is disappointing the resident had to make a formal complaint to receive any response to her queries. The landlord stated the waste management charge applied to all maisonettes, low and high rise flat blocks. It said the charge covered the removal of fly tipped rubbish on housing land, clearance of rubbish in bin chutes and any other communal areas. It said the amount charged varies between properties due to the level of service it provides. It said that, as the property did not have internal communal areas or a bin chute, the charge was less than those that did. It concluded the charges had been applied correctly.
14. The stage 1 response did not fully address the resident’s concerns and did not make complete sense. It did not address why she had to pay a waste management charge when her property does not receive any of the services covered by it. The landlord said the charge varied depending on the level of service but it is not clear why there should be a charge at all if there is no such service provided.
15. If the landlord’s position is that it charges every single property in its stock a waste management charge, regardless of whether there is any type of service, it should be clear about that. This response suggested the resident was still receiving some type of waste management service, although less than flat residents, which was not the case. This lack of transparency is not fair on resident who did not understand what she was paying for or why.
16. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 November 2022. She said she had never received any services covered by the charge and it was not applicable to the property. She included photographs of the property exterior, which showed there was no ‘housing land’ that could be charged for fly tipping removal. She said the charge had been removed from her neighbour’s account. This highlights inconsistencies in the landlord’s application of the charges and the resident’s frustration is understandable.
17. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 29 November 2022, within its target timescale. It reiterated that the charge covered the cost of fly tipping on housing land and the charges were correct. It did not address the resident’s assertion that her property had no land that could be classed as ‘housing land’ nor the inconsistency with her neighbour’s charge. This was not sufficient to deal with the resident’s concerns. The landlord said it accepted that the term waste management could be looked at to provide clarity on what the charge actually covers. However, there is no evidence this was done and no further clarity was provided to the resident.
18. The resident’s occupancy agreement says the landlord has the right to introduce new services that the resident will be charged for. It is not within our remit to state what the landlord can or should charge, but we can determine that the landlord has failed in sufficiently explaining to the resident exactly what service she is receiving in exchange for the charge.
19. The resident has repeatedly queried the charge and there is no evidence of any meaningful response from the landlord until the formal complaint was made. It remains unclear why the resident continues to pay for services the property does not require and there has not been a satisfactory resolution in ensuring her understanding. The landlord’s handling of queries regarding waste management charges amounts to service failure.
20. As a result, the landlord should:
    1. Review the resident’s rent account to see why she is being charged for a waste management service that the property does not receive. The review should take into account the fact the resident was refunded for erroneous charges in 2011 and her report that neighbouring properties are not charged.
    2. Speak directly to the resident to explain why she is being charged for waste management. A telephone call or meeting should take place instead of written communication to achieve resolution and understanding. This will give the resident an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarity.
    3. Pay the resident £100 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for service failure, for the time, trouble and stress experienced by her querying this over many years.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about waste management charges.

Orders and recommendations

22. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Review the resident’s charges for waste management and assess whether they are correct, taking into account all information above.
    2. Speak to the resident directly, either by telephone or in person, to explain the application of waste management charges to the property.
    3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, stress and inconvenience spent in querying the issue.