Southwark Council (202111896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111896

Southwark Council

9 February 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports of inadequate cleaning to the communal parts of the building.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been a leaseholder of a flat within a small housing block comprising four flats since 2017.

Summary of events

3. On 24 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. He said that the cleaners rarely visited the site and that when they did, the quality of their work was poor. He did not see a cleaner for the first eight months after moving in and that he ended up doing the cleaning himself. He said that he had followed the normal escalation process of attempting to report the issue to the duty cleaning manager but that little had been done. With regard to the internal parts of the building, the resident said that the stairs, corridors and walls were stained and dirty due to lack of proper cleaning, the walls having never been washed and that the roof above the downstairs shop was full of rubbish with blocked gutters. The resident provided photos in support of his complaint.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 August 2020. It said that it had asked the cleaning supervisor to report on the condition of the building and that she had reported it to be in good condition. The supervisor had inspected the roof, but it could not be walked on for health and safety reasons. However, it said that it would do a litter pick if access could be gained. The landlord confirmed that the building should be swept and spot–mopped daily and that walls were washed twice yearly. The resident did not receive the stage 1 response and so it was emailed to him on 4 September 2020.
5. On 12 October 2020 the resident made a stage 2 complaint. He said that there was a lack of investigation and feedback provided by the stage 1 response and the evidence that he had presented had not been taken on board. He said that there was bias by the stage 1 investigator and the issue had been ongoing despite escalating it to the resident office and cleaning area manager. The resident said that the building had currently not been cleaned for over two weeks. The resident’s view was that, because the block was part of a larger estate, but detached from the main estate, it was regularly neglected.
6. On 6 November 2020 the landlord’s complaints officer requested that the cleaning manager provide the last few cleaning schedules that could be used to evidence that the block was being cleaned. The complaints officer said that this would elevate the stage 2 response beyond being one person’s word against the other and would therefore prevent any further allegation of bias.
7. The manager responded that the cleaning schedules were generic and therefore it did not provide paper evidence. Although the resident had said that the complaint had not been investigated, the area supervisor had visited the building and declared it as being in good condition. The manager said that, had this not been the case the supervisor would have instructed the cleaner and ensured that the area was clean. The manager said that if work was not being done then action would be taken. He said that the resident’s claim that the block had not been cleaned for two weeks was found not to be the case upon inspection.
8. On 7 December 2020, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said that it disputed that the block had not been cleaned for a six-month period and that the area supervisor had confirmed that the communal areas were now cleaned to a good standard and further inspections would be conducted to ensure the upkeep of the cleaning. It said that the resident had the right to attend estate inspections alongside the resident services officer if he had concerns about the communal area. It advised the resident to contact the resident services officer to obtain the date of the next scheduled appointment. Finally, the landlord said that it had found no evidence of the stage 1 response being biased.
9. The resident contacted this Service on 23 August 2021. He explained that he had delayed in making contact because he was always being told by the landlord that it would do things, that there was delayed communication, but that ultimately the issues remained outstanding.
10. This Service contacted the landlord asking for:
    1. A copy of the generic cleaning schedule.
    2. Any evidence of cleaners attending the building during 2020.
    3. The date that the cleaning supervisor visited the building in response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and a copy of any report or email sent by the supervisor following the visit.
11. In response, the landlord has provided a copy of a cleaning task list for the property. It has also provided copies of two emails from the supervisor specifically in relation to the cleaning of the bin chambers. It has also provided a number of emails relating to the rubbish room door being removed, resulting in antisocial behaviour, which is not the subject of this complaint. It has not provided the evidence asked for in the last two bullet points above.

Policies and Procedures

12. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for ‘cleaning of common areas.’
13. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it puts a strong emphasis on making personal contact with complainants and finding out from them what was needed to put things right. In trying to resolve the complaint the policy goes on to state that, where appropriate, it will offer to meet with the complainant to provide it with the opportunity to fully understand what they want it to do to remedy the complaint.
14. The complaints policy goes on to say that where a complaint highlights the need for changes in working practice, systems, staff training, procedure or policy, this should be highlighted to the customer resolutions team who will work with the service manager(s) concerned to make sure the necessary actions to bring about change are carried out.

Assessment and findings

15. Although the resident’s original complaint included issues about the state of the main entrance and missed waste collections, the Ombudsman understands that the landlord has logged these as separate complaints. Therefore, this report will only deal with the cleaning of the communal areas.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response shows no evidence of an investigation. A supervisor reporting that the building was in good condition on the occasion she visited is not an adequate response to a complaint that the property was not being routinely cleaned.
17. The landlord failed to follow its own complaints procedure as it did not offer to meet with the resident in response to his formal complaint. The landlord could have arranged for the supervisor to meet with the resident at the time that she was attending to inspect the building. However, the supervisor visited at a time and date unknown to the resident or the Ombudsman.
18. The resident had provided photos of rubbish on the roof below one of the walkways. Without specifically saying that it upheld his complaint in this regard, the landlord clearly accepted that the roof needed cleaning. It said that it would do a litter pick if it could get access. This response is unsatisfactory in that it is open-ended and does not convey any imperative on the part of the landlord to resolve the problem.
19. Whilst the stage 1 response stated that the communal areas were swept and spot mopped daily and that the walls were washed twice yearly, it offered no evidence of that. For instance, no record has been provided by the landlord specifying when the walls were last washed.
20. The complaints officer was responsible for drafting the stage 2 complaint response but was reliant on information provided by the relevant service area. In spite of asking for evidence from the area cleaning manager that regular cleaning was taking place, it was not forthcoming. For example, the manager said that the resident’s assertion that the building had not been cleaned in the last two weeks was false, but he did not provide any explanation or evidence of why he believed that to be the case.
21. The stage 2 response reiterated that the area supervisor had been instructed to conduct an inspection of the building and it was reported that the communal areas were now in good condition. However, the landlord has failed to provide evidence of this inspection that was requested by this Service.  The stage 2 response goes on to say that the supervisor has been asked to continue to monitor the building, however the Ombudsman would have assumed that this function would already form part of the supervisor’s job.
22. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord has been unable to provide any evidence that the communal areas of the building are cleaned on a daily basis and that the cleaning is of an adequate quality. The task list that it has provided is simply a list with ticks next to the work that should be undertaken, but it is not proof that the tasks were actually being done on a regular basis.
23. It is the regularity of the cleaning that is in dispute. The resident says that he does not see cleaners for weeks at a time, whereas the landlord says that they attend daily. It should be simple for the landlord to implement a system whereby the resident and other tenants can quickly see that a cleaner has been. For example, it could put up a sign-in sheet in the communal area that the cleaners have to sign on each visit. The resident could then call the landlord’s attention to when no-one has attended, or when the sheet has been signed but it is not apparent that any cleaning has been carried out. 
24. The landlord mentioned to the resident that he could attend inspections carried out by the resident services officer. It might have been helpful if the landlord had provided this officer’s inspection reports for the period in question.
25. The Ombudsman considers that it would be helpful in resolving the issues if the landlord now regularly meets with the resident to discuss the level of cleaning. If the resident sees no evidence of change, then he could make a new complaint after six months.
26. The investigation of the resident’s complaint has lacked rigour. The Ombudsman does not know if the landlord went back through any records it might have to satisfy itself that the cleaners have attended daily. The Ombudsman remains unclear as to how the landlord monitors its cleaning function.
27. As the landlord has been unable to provide any substantive evidence, the Ombudsman is persuaded by the resident’s account that the cleaners have not regularly attended to clean the communal areas.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of inadequate cleaning to the communal parts of the building.

Reasons

29. The landlord has offered no evidence to support its assertion that the communal areas are regularly cleaned and there was no in-depth investigation of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to undertake the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord should arrange some method of reporting, such as a sign-in sheet for the cleaners, to be placed where it can easily be seen by the resident and other tenants.
    2. If the resident agrees, the landlord should arrange to meet with the resident on site on a fortnightly basis for six to discuss any issues with the cleaning. The meetings can be less frequent or conclude before six months at the resident’s request.
    3. If it has not already done so, the landlord should formulate a plan for clearing the litter off the shop roof space.
    4. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should arrange training for the cleaning management team so they can respond to complaints in an open and transparent way and understand the evidential requirements for complaint investigations.
    5. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for inconvenience and the time and trouble he has taken in having to repeatedly complain.