South Tyneside Housing Ventures Trust Limited (202012516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012516

South Tyneside Housing Ventures Trust Limited

27 July 2021

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 standard of cleaning carried out at the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has complained that the cleaners have not consistently attended to the neighbouring block.
Paragraph 36 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made, must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
The resident’s complaint about cleaning in a neighbouring block will not be considered as part of this complaint, as it is a matter that does not adversely affect their occupation of their property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a maisonette with two flats, which share a communal entrance and hallway. The resident’s tenancy at the property started in January 2020. They pay a weekly service charge, which we understand includes the cleaning service.
The resident’s tenancy agreement stipulates that the landlord is responsible for taking reasonable care to keep the common entrance, halls etc repair and fit for use.
The landlord’s Neighbourhood management policy stipulates that it will inspect communal areas and notes officers will use their judgement and knowledge of their areas to increase the frequency of inspections where necessary and produce action plans to deal with any problems.
The policy also confirms that there is a cleaning schedule in place for each communal area.
The cleaning schedule for the property, states that that a 1 hour weekly clean is carried out on a Thursday, every week, by a mobile team of two. It notes that the specification for the cleaning of the internal communal entrances consists of:
1. vacuuming carpets.
2. washing all woodwork and ledges; and
3. the cleaning of the internal glass above the front door.

In addition to the above, the landlord confirmed that it has been agreed that a monthly external window clean to the front entrance door is to be carried out from February 2021.

Summary of events

The resident reports that they raised their concern about the cleaning to the communal areas of their block, as early as January 2020. In the information provided to this Service, the first report made by the resident is dated 7 February 2020.They explained that they had not seen the cleaners attend the property. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and advised that the cleaners would start attending once a week, the following week.
In June 2020, the resident reported again that the cleaners had not been attending. We have not received evidence that the landlord responded to this.
In September 2020, the resident reported concerns about the standard of the cleaning taking place and the equipment the cleaners were using. In addition to this, they asked the landlord who was responsible for cleaning the external communal window and door.
On 8 October 2020, they raised a formal complaint. They said that cleaning had not been done for most of that year, despite them paying weekly for this and they reported that the cleaners were not bringing the necessary equipment to clean when they did attend and had damaged the front gate.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 October 2020, to discuss the complaint and asked them to provide their camera footage, that they said was evidence of the concerns they had raised, so that it could review this.
It also said that it would make internal enquiries about the resident’s question concerning the cleaning of the external communal window, speak with the cleaning team and monitor the cleaning over a month period.
The resident responded with further details about their concerns and what they wanted the landlord to do to resolve matters:
1. They explained they did not believe the cleaning had been completed for half of that year and wanted the landlord to refund their service charge payments, for this period.
2. They asked that the landlord attend with the cleaners for a few months to ensure tasks were completed with the necessary equipment.
3. They did not believe the cleaners were spending enough time cleaning the block. They also reported that the cleaners had not attended to clean their block for two weeks and had camera footage of this.
4. They felt the cleaners were not bringing all the necessary equipment to clean and made suggestions of the equipment they believed should be used. They also requested a specification of tasks for the cleaners.
5. They said that the areas, such as the internal communal window, were not being cleaned.
6. They reported that products being used to clean surfaces were causing damage to the door handle.
7. They reported that the cleaners had damaged the gate and requested the cleaners be careful when wearing jewellery as they felt this was causing damage to the external banister.
8. They said that their complaints had been discussed outside their property and that they had overheard this.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 16 October 2020. It said that it:
1. Had “passed on requests to STH (South Tyneside Homes)”.
2. Met with the cleaners and set out the cleaning regime, which confirmed:

– The necessary cleaning equipment to be used. Which was: a bucket of hot water to rinse cloth, new cloths, sanitiser spray, window spray, a vacuum, to vacuum carpet, step ladders to reach and clean window above door and higher ledges and, a high duster to clean ceiling and walls.

– The minimum length of time the cleaners were expected to spend cleaning.

– That the gate should be closed correctly when leaving the premises; and

– That a supervisor is to check the cleaning on a weekly basis, starting the following week.

Was informed by the cleaners that the flat doors were cleaned which was above the scope of the cleaning schedule.

In addition, it said that the cleaners had photographic evidence of how the building was left that week after the cleaning was completed.

The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and asked that the complaint be escalated in its complaint’s procedure. They noted:
1. That the cleaners did not attend with the necessary equipment and commented that the products being used to clean were not appropriate for the surfaces.
2. That they did not believe that the landlord had agreed a specification of tasks for the cleaners and, felt the issues they raised about the cleaning, had not been addressed.
3. They did not believe that the cleaning had been carried out as expected, from the start of their tenancy.
After the resident requested the escalation of their complaint, they submitted further reports to the landlord on 22 October 2020 and 29 October 2020, about the cleaning being carried out and equipment being used to clean.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of the complaint procedure on 27 October 2020. It said that it attended the property on 23 October 2020, to inspect the communal areas and found it to be clean. It apologised that the resident was not satisfied with the cleaning however, said that having investigated the matter, it found the cleaners had delivered a satisfactory service and therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
The resident requested that the complaint be taken to the third stage of the complaints procedure on 9 November 2020. They explained that:
1. They did not believe the issues they raised had been addressed and, the landlord had not contacted them to discuss the matters.
2. They had provided the landlord with what they considered to be evidence that the cleaners were not attending and bringing the appropriate equipment.
3. They believed that the cleaning had not been carried out for the majority of that year, but the landlord were still charging for this service.
4. The cleaning to the external communal window was not being carried out.
5. They believed that the landlord had previously agreed that the cleaning was not acceptable after it reviewed the evidence provided but, had not put any measures in place to address this.
Shortly after, the resident made further reports about the cleaner’s recent visits. They explained that the cleaners were not attending with a step ladder, as specified in the regime, and questioned how the internal window was being cleaned without this.
On receipt of the complaint, the landlord reviewed the pictures taken of the block during the visit on 23 October 2020 and arranged a further visit to the property with the cleaners on 19 November 2020. On the day of the visit, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that the cleaners did not attend with the necessary cleaning equipment. On receiving the report, the landlord made internal queries with the staff member who attended on the same day and asked for feedback from their visit. The staff member responded and noted that they found the property to be clean.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 24 November 2020. It upheld its findings from the stage two complaint and explained:
1. It attended the property on 19 November 2020 to inspect the cleaning to the resident’s block and found the standard of cleaning was “extremely high”.
2. That it reviewed photographs taken during the visit to the property on 23 October 2020, and found the cleaning matched the standard observed during the visit on 19 November 2020.
3. It reviewed the video footage the resident had sent and found no evidence from this to suggest that the resident’s block had been missed on that occasion.
4. It apologised the resident was not happy with the standard of the cleaning but said that it was satisfied after reviewing the evidence, that the cleaning met its expectations.
5. It said the cleaning team had continued to provide a service on a weekly basis as expected, even throughout the first lockdown when other services were suspended and it did not therefore, feel it was appropriate to offer a refund of the service charge paid.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service on 21 January 2021. They explained that:
1. They were not happy with the landlord’s investigation of their complaint. They noted that there was “poor communication at various stages and lack of engagement”.
2. They did not believe any communal cleaning was being carried out when they started the tenancy but, the landlord did not offer a refund of the charges paid for this period.
3. The cleaners had not been attending, and when they did attend, they did not clean to a good standard and did not bring the necessary equipment to clean.
4. The landlord had not enforced the cleaning regime it set out in the stage one response.
5. The landlord had not addressed thier complaint concerning the query about cleaning to the external communal window.
6. Following the completion of the complaint procedure, the cleaning was not being carried out in accordance with the cleaning regime and the weekly supervised visits the landlord agreed to arrange, were not being completed.

Assessment and findings

Between February 2020 and October 2020, the resident had made reports to the landlord that they had not seen the cleaners attend and also, set out concerns that:
1. Areas within the communal area were not being cleaned or dusted.
2. They did not believe that the cleaners, when they did attend, brought the appropriate equipment to clean.
3. They did not believe the cleaning had been “thought through” and, asked the landlord who was responsible for cleaning the outside communal window and door.
From the information provided, there is no evidence of what action, if any, the landlord took to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord responded to the resident in February 2020 and confirmed when the cleaners would be attending in the future. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint about whether cleaners had attended in the past or the standard of cleaning.
The landlord has made this Service aware that the cleaning staff were spoken to about the issues raised, prior to the submission of the formal complaint. Though, no information about what was discussed has been provided and, the resident was not informed of the outcome of the investigation at that time. In addition to this, there are no records in the form of attendance logs, inspection records or otherwise, to show that the cleaning was taking place as expected.
When the resident submitted their complaint to the landlord on 8 October 2020, they explained that they were dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning in the building.
The parties discussed the complaint, on 9 October 2020. Following the call, the landlord emailed the resident and asked them to provide the camera footage that they said supported their complaint, so that it could review this. It also stated that it would make enquiries about the external window cleaning query the resident raised and speak with the cleaning team. It said it was hopeful that the cleaning would improve going forward and confirmed it would monitor the cleaning for a month.
When it provided its stage one response, it said that it had met with the cleaning team, and reiterated information about the cleaning service it expected them to provide. This included the specification of the equipment the cleaners were expected to use, the minimum amount of time they were expected to spend cleaning and confirmed that the cleaning would be checked weekly by a supervisor.
The landlord also said that it had “passed on requests to STH” but it did not clarify what the requests were for or, provide any information about response to the requests.
The landlord’s response did not address the complaint about its failure to respond to the resident’s earlier concerns, nor did it provide information in about the standard of cleaning prior to the complaint.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord investigated the resident’s complains about the standard of cleaning between February and October 2020.
Furthermore, despite requesting this, the landlord did not comment on the camera footage provided by the resident; nor did it provide information about window cleaning, as it offered.
At stage two, the resident raised further concerns about the equipment the cleaners were using and explained that they were not satisfied that the landlord had adequately briefed the cleaning contractors with a specification of tasks, or that the cleaning had been carried out to an adequate standard since the start of their tenancy in January 2020.
On receipt of the complaint, the landlord arranged a visit to the property on 23 October 2020 to inspect the communal areas and it took pictures, copies of which, have been provided to this Service. It was appropriate that it carried out the inspection of the area, so that it could respond to the further reports raised about the standard of cleaning.
It failed to address the resident’s point about the specification of tasks. The landlord has provided this Service with a cleaning schedule, but it is not clear when this was implemented. Regardless, this information was not provided to the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s complaint about the equipment being used by its contractors, nor did it provide a response on this point.
When the resident escalated the complaint further in the landlord’s complaints procedure. They noted that:
1. They felt it had not addressed the issues raised about whether cleaning was being carried out correctly.
2. They had shown evidence that the cleaners were not attending or bringing the appropriate equipment.
After submitting the complaint, they also reported further concerns about the standard of cleaning.
In response to the resident’s escalation request, the landlord arranged a further visit to inspect the communal areas on the same date the cleaners attended on 19 November 2020 and considered the information provided by the resident. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the report taken following the visit, and it said that it found the property to exceptionally clean.
The resident made enquiries about the standard of cleaning between February and October 2020. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to these enquiries, and it was necessary for the resident to make a complaint.
Once the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint, it provided information about how cleaning would be carried out in future but did not comment on the resident’s earlier enquiries about the standard of cleaning, nor on its failure to respond.
When the resident escalated their complaint, the landlord carried out inspections of the property and was satisfied that cleaning was carried out to a reasonable standard. There is evidence to support the landlord’s findings.
It said that cleaning had been carried out as expected, even during the first lockdown, which was during the period when the resident said they did not believe cleaning was taking place. However, there is no evidence in support of this finding.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided any information to the resident in response to their queries about the cleaning to the external window.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the standard of cleaning.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial queries about the standard of cleaning. When the resident complained about this, the landlord did not address its failure to respond to their earlier queries but focused on the standard of cleaning currently in place. While the landlord provided accurate information about how cleaning would be provided in future, it did not provide responses to issues raised throughout the complaint process about the effectiveness of cleaning, the process used by contractors, or concerns about window cleaning. It concluded that the cleaning was being carried out during the period which the resident said it was not but, failed to provide any detail of what information it relied on to reach this decision.

Orders and recommendations

I make the following orders:
That the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of their complaint about the cleaning at the property.
That the landlord provide information to the resident about who is responsible for cleaning exterior windows at the property.

These orders should be completed within three weeks of the date of this letter.