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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202004084)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004084

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 December 2020


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 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal area.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an affordable rent tenancy with the landlord and has lived in the property since it was built in 2018. The property is a three‑bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. There is an outside communal area which is made up of a communal terrace, balcony and play space. For ease, I shall refer to this area as “the communal area” throughout this report. A property management company (the management company) has responsibility for part of the block; this does not include the communal area.
  2. The complainant’s tenancy agreement obliges him to pay the landlord rent for his home but did not require him to pay it additional charges for heating or other services.
  3. The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage one the landlord aims to respond within ten working days. If the only reason for escalation to stage two is a compensation award then the landlord will not escalate the case to stage two; instead a senior manager, who has not been involved in the case, will review the complaint, consider if the decision should be changed then write to the customer to let them know the outcome
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will try to provide excellent services at all times. If it fails to do that it will apologise for any failures; take appropriate action to rectify the issue or failure; and consider if a goodwill gesture or payment of compensation is appropriate.
  5. The landlord’s compensation procedures say that for customers who do not pay a service charge but have use of a communal amenity, such as affordable rent tenants, any payment of compensation should be considered in the context of a service failure.
  6. When it is is evident that the landlord has failed to deliver a service in line with its service standards then it can consider making a payment of up to £25 depending on the circumstances of the failure and the impact it had on the customer. For multiple services failures that may have taken place over a protracted period and where a customer is requesting compensation for an unquantifiable loss such as inconvenience and distress then the landlord can consider making a payment of up to £50.

Summary of events

  1. On 25 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord about cleaning of the communal area. The landlord asked the management company to look into this and they said they would ask their cleaners to attend that area the following week.
  2. On 3 June 2020 the landlord logged a complaint from the resident about the cleaning of the communal area. He said he wanted compensation for the cleaning not taking place for over two years.
  3. In an internal email dated 22 June 2020, the landlord noted that it was responsible for the cleaning of the communal area and, while the management company was responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the building, this did not include the communal area.
  4. On 23 June 2020 the landlord confirmed its estates management team were cleaning the communal area weekly and would continue to do so.
  5. On 23 June 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response under its formal complaints procedure. It confirmed it was responsible for cleaning the communal area and its team were cleaning that area weekly and would continue to do so. In terms of compensation, the landlord explained that, as the resident did not pay a service charge and therefore had not been financially disadvantaged by the cleaning schedule, compensation was not appropriate. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to him.
  6. On 3 July 2020 the landlord sent a further response, apologising that it had not addressed all of the resident’s concerns. The points from that letter were:
  • It had wrongly assumed that the management company were responsible for cleaning the communal area.
  • It did not realise that error until the resident had brought the lack of cleaning to its attention. The landlord thanked the resident for doing so and apologised for its failure.
  • It offered the resident compensation of £25 which it said was in line with its policy (paragraph 7). It added that it believed that to be an appropriate amount because, whilst the area was not being cleaned, the condition of the area was not poor and it considered the impact of that failure on the resident was negligible.
  1. On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
  2. On 22 July 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. It said it had decided that the compensation procedure had been followed and the amount of compensation offered was fair. The landlord explained that the award of £25 was appropriate because, while the cleaning did not happen over a longer period, the impact of the failure was minimal and the space was still useable by residents. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.  
  3. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said as a result of the communal area not being cleaned, it was “filthy” and his neighbour had reported rats in that area. He said it was not suitable to be used for outdoor play by his children. He said this was particularly hard on them during the coronavirus lockdown earlier in 2020. He added that, while his flat had a balcony, it was narrow with a low rail and was not suitable for the children to play out on. 
  4. The resident said this matter was unresolved for a long time and, before bringing it to the attention of the landlord in writing, he had raised it at various meetings between tenants and the landlord. To resolve matters, the resident wanted a higher compensation level that reflected the amount of service charge which was included in his rent or a sum that represented the savings that the landlord had made by not cleaning the communal area for over two years.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows that the resident first raised the issue of the cleaning of the communal area in writing with the landlord in January 2020. The landlord, believing the management company was responsible for this, raised it with them. The response from the management company suggested that it also understood it was responsible. (paragraph 7). Given that, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take further action at that time.
  2. When the resident raised a formal complaint some months later, the landlord looked again at this and realised it was responsible for the cleaning of this area. It took appropriate action to ensure the area was cleaned from then on (paragraph 11) and also apologised to the resident (paragraph 14). Given the management company was not obligated to clean this area and the landlord was unaware of its responsibility, it is reasonable to conclude the communal area was not cleaned from when residents started moving into the building in Spring 2018 to the summer of 2020, a period of over two years.
  3. The landlord’s failure to understand its obligations with respect to the cleaning of the building from when the building came into use is a service failure.
  4. The landlord decided that, as the resident did not pay a service charge, he had not been financially disadvantaged by the lack of cleaning and therefore financial compensation was not appropriate. It offered him £25 explaining that was an appropriate amount because the impact on him had been negligible (paragraph 13).
  5. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. Under its compensation procedures, the landlord is not required to reimburse the service charge for a service that is not received by affordable rent tenants. Therefore its decision to treat consider compensation as a service failure was appropriate (paragraph 6).
  7. However, it is evident that this matter caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident and his family and that the resident did not consider it was reasonable for his children to play in an area with cigarette butts lying on the ground. In light of this impact, the compensation of £25 offered by the landlord was not proportionate. In this case this Service considers that the sum of £100 would be proportionate redress to reflect the fact the detriment to the resident and his family by the fact that the area was not cleaned for a long period and that the cleanliness of that area would likely have deteriorated over time.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal area.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not recognise its obligation to clean the communal area. Once this had brought to its attention, it apologised and ensured that this area would be cleaned going forward. The amount of compensation offered to the resident, however, was not proportionate to the detriment he experienced.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall within four weeks of the date of this report:
  • Pay the resident the sum of £100 (minus any compensation already paid relating to the cleaning of the communal area).
  1. The landlord shall also provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this payment.