Westminster City Council (202228844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228844

Westminster City Council

21 June 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 response to the resident’s queries about his contract cleaning service charges.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has lived in his 1-bedroom flat since 2002.
Following a phone call with the landlord, the resident emailed it on 5 March 2021 to confirm that he had never “seen a cleaner [clean the internal communal areas of his building]” since he had moved in to his flat.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord told the resident that the cleaning agreement for his block did not include any internal cleaning and only covered cleaning the external stairs.
The resident responded. He said that the landlord had not properly investigated his concerns about being charged for cleaning services that he did not receive. He asked the landlord to explain the charge of £936.07 per year for contract cleaning on his service charge bill, as the external stairs that landlord said was covered to the cost related to only 2 steps that led to the front door.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that there was a caretaker for his block. It said the caretaker’s tasks included; litter picking the main entrance steps, back garden areas, including the grass and the large hard surface area at the back of the garden. It said that the charge of £936.07 per year for these tasks were reasonable value for money.
On 26 April 2021 the resident raised his concerns about the landlord’s response to his service charge queries. He said that he had never seen the caretaker clean, there was also no grass to clear. He asked the landlord for the procedure to challenge the service charges bill.
On 5 May 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update on his queries. He reiterated that he requested details on how to challenge his service charge bill and listed the reasons why he wanted to challenge it.
On 12 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. he had been given several different “excuses, justifying” the cleaning charges, which were incorrect.
2. he had requested, several times, for the correct procedure to challenge his service charges but the landlord had yet to respond.
3. he requested that all service charge payments for the cleaning services spanning over several years should be reimbursed.
On 28 July 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. the contract cleaning charge related to the costs for the cleaning service for the communal areas of his block. It said they included litter picking and the cleaning of the communal stairwells and floors. It said, each block or estate had its own cleaning schedule which generally included sweeping, mopping and litter picking.
2. Its contractor’s (contractor A’s) agreement did not provide internal cleaning; its duties were to sweep the external steps outside the building which formed part of the contract.
3. a caretaker was also assigned to maintain the resident’s block. Their duties were litter picking the steps of the main entrance door, back garden areas, grass, and the large hard surface area at the back of the garden.
4. it had carried out a review of the cleaning costs and determined that they were correct.
The evidence available suggest that there was no further contact between the resident and the landlord in the following year.
On 28 July 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. He was paying for a service that had not been honoured. Contractor A’s contract included duties such as picking and cleaning of the communal stairwells and floors, sweeping, mopping and litter picking.
2. His block did not have any communal stairwells, and there were only a couple of external steps to sweep. He had never seen Contractor A’s operatives inside the communal area or sweep the steps.
3. if there was a cleaning agreement with Contractor A, why was he paying for the caretaker to pick up the litter in the patio area, which he had never seen him do.
He later added that:
1. he had never seen Contractor A clean the windows as per the cleaning contract.
2. picking up litter was the responsibility of the caretaker and therefore should fall under caretaker services as per the section 20 notice. Therefore, he should not pay the full charge as it said that funded caretaking services did not form part of the proposals.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. the contract cleaning element of his service charges included; external litter picking and sweeping including the steps to the main entrance door in addition to the large hard surface area at the back of the garden. Removal of bulk refuse, if necessary and lighting checks and change bulbs, where necessary.
2. The service the resident received was for external contract cleaning. The only services he paid for were contract cleaning and annual window cleaning. Both provided by Contractor A. It had carried out window cleaning in February 2021 and April 2022.
3. it carried out inspections to monitor the services provided by its contractors, which included the externa communal areas.
4. it apologised for the “confusion” it had caused in its responses. It had used the words “cleaning” and “caretaking” to describe the same service. The only services the resident paid for were for contract cleaning and window cleaning provided by contractor A. It said its responses should have been clearer regarding the services he received.
The resident referred his complaint to the Service and raised concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s responses.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s service charges booklet stated that:
1. caretaking services included the cost of the residential caretaker carrying out various tasks such as basic repairs, reporting incidents like nuisance or vandalism, monitoring the use of the premises or removing litter from residents blocks and/or estates.
2. contract cleaning included the cost for the cleaning service to the communal areas of residents’ block and/ or estate. These include duties such as litter picking, cleaning of communal stairwells and floors. Each block or estate had its own cleaning schedule which generally included sweeping, mopping and litter picking. This work was carried out by Contractor A.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has not assessed the reasonableness of the charges or whether services have been provided as stated by the landlord. Should the resident have such concerns or wish for such matters to be investigated, he should contact the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) accordingly.

The services included in the contract cleaning service charges

We have not been provided with the landlord’s service charge policy and/or procedure. Therefore, we have assessed whether the landlord’s actions in this case were reasonable and fair.
The resident raised his concerns that he was being charged for internal communal cleaning when he had not received the service. The landlord explained that the cleaning agreement with Contractor A did not include internal communal cleaning and it only covered cleaning the external steps.
The resident challenged the cost of £936.07 per year for the contract cleaning charge for his block when he informed the landlord that there were only a couple of external steps in his block to sweep.
In response, the landlord explained that there were other tasks which were carried out by the caretaker, such as litter picking the external communal areas. It was appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the matter further. However, that it did not carry out a meaningful investigation into the matter at the time of the resident’s initial query, caused him time, trouble and inconvenience, as he had to challenge the matter further. This could have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had provided a more thorough response to the resident at the outset.
In the resident’s formal complaint he reiterated his concerns that the cleaning charges were incorrect and that the landlord had given him “excuses” to “justify” the charges.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord referenced its service charges booklet description and said that the contract cleaning service included cleaning of the communal stairwells and floors. It then went on to say that Contractor A’s agreement did not cover the provision of internal cleaning and its duties only included sweeping the external steps.
It is noted that the landlord tried to explain what services were provided under the cleaning contract provision. However, referring to elements that did not form part of the resident’s specific service charges, such as cleaning of the communal stairwells, would have caused more confusion and frustration for the resident who considered that he was being charged for services that he did not receive.
In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have specifically addressed what services he was paying for rather using the standard definitions from its handbook. This may have gone some way to reduce the confusion and better answer the resident’s complaint.
As the landlord failed to provide a clear explanation of the cleaning services, the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his concerns that he was paying for services that he did not receive, such as cleaning of the communal stairwells and floors.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that the service that the resident received was for external contract cleaning and the only services that he paid for were contract cleaning and window cleaning by Contractor A. This went some way to reassure the resident that he was not paying for services that he had not received. However, given that the standard definition of contract cleaning included “cleaning of the communal stairwells”; it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified that the resident was not paying for such services.
Also, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with supporting documentation such as its cleaning schedule to demonstrate the services he should receive and had paid for. This may have gone some way to effectively respond to his concerns and provide reassurance that he was not paying for services that he did not receive.
In its response, the landlord also said that bulk refuse removal, lighting checks and bulb changes were included in the contract cleaning service charges. This was its third explanation about what services were included in the contract cleaning service charges. With each explanation the landlord included additional provisions. By failing to provide accurate and consistent information, it undermined the integrity of the information that it provided.
Our December 2023 Insight Report (Insight report) said that the Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to provide clear information about a charge that is payable, when general terms are used. In this case, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s failure to provide consistent and clear information meant that the resident did not feel reassured that his charges were fair and related to services he was being provided with. Therefore, it is unsurprising that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and questioned the accuracy of the information that it provided. An order has been made in relation to this matter.

The standard and level of the external cleaning

In April and May 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had not seen the caretaker clean the external communal areas which it had said formed part of his duties under the cleaning contract service charges. The evidence available suggests that it failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns at this time, which was unreasonable.
The resident raised his concerns again in his complaint escalation request. In response, the landlord said that it carried out inspections to monitor the services provided by its contractors. This response was inadequate. Given that the resident raised concerns about the standard of service; it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken proactive steps to meaningfully investigate the matter. This could have included clarifying the resident’s concerns, carrying out an ad hoc inspection and providing the resident with its previous inspection reports. This would have demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and would have also supported its comments that it monitored the service that was being provided.
Our Insight report stated that “where residents raise concerns about the standard of service, it would be for the landlord to demonstrate the service is chargeable under the lease or tenancy, that it has been provided and that the standard was of satisfactory quality.” The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not take steps to do so. That was a failing.

The resident’s requests to challenge the service charges

The evidence provided to this Service shows the resident asked the landlord for the procedure on how he could challenge the service charge bill several times, including in his formal complaint in July 2021. He also asked for the service charges for the contract cleaning services to be reimbursed. The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord failed to respond to his requests. This caused him time, trouble and inconvenience. Also, the landlord’s failure to respond meant that it limited the resident’s right to challenge the reasonableness of the service charges.
Given the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s specific request. This could have included signposting him to agencies such as the lease advice website and the FTT. This may have gone some way to demonstrate that it had acknowledged and listened to his request. That it did not was a failing.
Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have facilitated the resident’s request within its own service delivery remit. It is noted that the resident did not specifically request to inspect invoices or further documentation. However, as our Insight report stated that even where these provisions are not applicable, it may still be appropriate for landlords to provide relevant and additional information to a resident to assist them in understanding the charge. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so. This may have gone some way in responding to the resident’s request.

The landlord’s use of “caretaker” and “cleaning”

When the landlord told the resident that a caretaker carried out sweeping and litter picking of the external communal grounds, the resident queried why the service charge bill did not show charges under the ‘block caretaking services.’ The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord did not respond at that time, which is a failing.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said Contractor A carried out cleaning services and there was “also” a caretaker that litter picked the steps as well as other areas of the external communal grounds. This suggested that there were two different and separate service providers. Therefore it is understandable that the resident challenged this in his escalation request.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the confusion caused. It explained that it had used the terms “cleaning” and “caretaking” to describe the same service. The landlord explained that the resident only paid for contract cleaning which was provided by Contractor A.
The landlord’s apology and explanation were reasonable. It also corroborated with the service charge bill that showed that the resident was only charged for the contract cleaning and not for caretaking services.
It is noted that at times the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s queries in a timely manner, which meant that he had to chase it for updates. While the reasons for the delays are unclear, they caused the resident time and trouble.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. provide the resident with clear and consistent information about what services were included in its contract cleaning charges.
2. respond to the resident’s queries in a timely manner.
3. address the resident’s concerns about the level of cleaning.
4. respond to the resident’s requests to challenge the service charges.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries about his contract cleaning service charges.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his contract cleaning service charges.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £350 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor response to the resident’s queries about his contact cleaning service charges.
3. contact the resident to discuss any outstanding queries he may have about his service charges. In doing so, it should:
  1. signpost the resident to supporting agencies.
  2. consider providing the resident with invoices and documents, such as the cleaning schedule to demonstrate what services he is paying for.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should review its service charge policy and procedure against our December 2023 Insight Report. In particular it should ensure that it provides residents with clear and accurate information in a timely manner.