Slough Borough Council (202232400)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232400

Slough Borough Council

5 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of the communal cleaning in the resident’s block.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor flat in a block of 5 other flats. The landlord is a council and the freeholder of the block.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 October 2022. He said:
   1. He paid £193.47 per year in advance for communal cleaning services.
   2. The last entry on the caretaker’s cleaning register was 25 March 2022.
   3. The landlord had not notified him personally of any changes in the arrangements. It had also not notified residents of any changes on the communal notice board or housing matters magazine.
   4. He asked the landlord to confirm why it had not completed the weekly cleaning tasks since 1 April 2022. And why it had not notified the resident of any changes in the defined caretaking services.
5. The resident sent another email on 6 November 2022 requesting the same information. He asked the landlord to provide a response within 7 days.
6. On 16 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He listed the following points:
   1. The landlord had not responded to his emails sent on 9 October 2022 and 6 November 2022 about the lack of caretaking visits to the communal areas of his block.
   2. The last caretaking activities had been 25 March 2022.
   3. He requested the landlord refund a portion of the £193.47 he had paid for caretaking services between April 2022 to March 2023.
7. On 23 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. It then sent its stage 1 response on 5 January 2023. It said:
   1. The absence of cleaning had been due to the previous caretaker’s illness, for which it apologised.
   2. It had reviewed its processes and put in place measures to prevent this happening in the future.
   3. It advised a new caretaker was in place and that they would conduct the cleaning every Tuesday.
   4. As it had re-instated the cleaning it had closed his stage 1 complaint.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 January 2023. He said that the cleaners had washed the floor on 3 January 2023, but the other caretaking duties appeared to have been missed. Also, the previous caretaker used to clean out the bin shed but this had not happened for an extended period of time. He requested a rebate of £145.10 for the 9-month period there was no cleaning. He enclosed photographs that listed the caretaking duties and the caretaking visit log sheet.
9. The landlord emailed the contractor on 27 January 2023. It requested evidence related to the complaint, including, details of cleaning during the complaint period, cleaning duties for the block including the bin sheds.
10. The contractor responded on 6 March 2023, it listed the cleaning duties as, sweeping, dusting and mopping. They confirmed the cleaners had not completed the log sheets because they did not have access to the locked notice board. It stated that overspill from the bins in the bin shed was part of the weekly duties but not the removal of fly tipping. It also listed the dates where there had been no cleaning undertaken due to staff absence.
11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 March 2023. It provided the following information:
    1. It acknowledged there was an absence of caretaking services for 7 weeks between the start of April 2022 and 21 June 2022.
    2. The resident could make a refund request for this period through the leasehold team, which it would support.
    3. As a result of the absences, it had put new procedures in place and there had been no further periods of absence.
    4. The weekly caretaking duties included, sweeping, dusting, mopping and litter picking any overfill from bins. Fly-tipping was not part of the weekly caretaking duties.
    5. It accepted that the contractors had not maintained the weekly log sheets. This was due to the lack of access to the locked notice board, which it had now resolved. It was continuing to monitor to ensure the duties were conducted and the log sheets were completed.
    6. It apologised for the lack of service provision in the period identified.
    7. It had received positive feedback about the cleaning of the block. The contractor had reassured it that the cleaning had taken place but acknowledged that this was not evidenced through the record sheets.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of the communal cleaning in the resident’s block.

12. In line with the leasehold agreement, the landlord was responsible for the cleaning of communal areas.
13. The landlord outsourced its cleaning duties to a contractor. The scope of services document associated with the contract lists the following weekly cleaning duties:
    1. Vacuum, sweep, mop, wipe all internal surfaces including floors, lifts, communal doors, entrance porches, etc.
    2. Wash ledges, skirtings, stair edgings, etc.
    3. Ensure communal entrance areas, porches and internal doors, fittings and glazing are free from marks, smears, loose dust and soiling.
    4. Spot clean floors and walls as required.
    5. Wash entrance doors and internal doors.
    6. Wipe down all light fittings and empty lamp diffusers of dust and dead insects.
    7. Wipe down gates and railings.
    8. Ensure hallways and stairwells are clear of combustible materials.
    9. Litter-pick and sweep external hard surfaces including bin stores and porches.
    10. Litter-pick soft landscaped areas, gardens and shrub beds.
    11. Remove waste from all bins and other litter receptacles.
    12. Free all drains and gullies of obstructions, and
    13. Wipe clean all accessible external furniture, lighting and signage of dust, dirt, cobwebs, stains and marks.
14. The scope of services document also lists the following responsibilities:
    1. The contractor will accurately maintain and update all site logs, registers, technical records, survey information, facility manuals, drawings, and any other information pertinent to the Services.
    2. The landlord will monitor the contractor’s performance weekly, monthly, and quarterly and hold monthly performance meetings.
    3. The landlord is required to conduct random inspections of blocks that have been cleaned or when cleaning is in progress and complete a cleaning monitoring checklist.
15. As per its contract management document, the landlord should attend the block to determine if the cleaning is being carried out and meets the required standard. The landlord has not provided any documents or inspection records to show that it had been monitoring the contractor’s performance, duties, or the standard of cleaning at the resident’s block. This demonstrates non-compliance with its responsibilities as a contract manager, for which it charges a management fee, this is unacceptable.
16. It has provided photographs of attendance logs for cleaners from September 2023. While the logs provide some insight, they are not relevant to the period of the complaint.
17. The landlord advised that the 7-week period the cleaning had not happened was due to staff absence. It is unreasonable that it did not have procedures in place to identify the need for cover during these periods. It agreed to compensate the resident for the 7-week period. Without the presence of log sheets and monitoring inspection records, the landlord cannot evidence that the cleaning was taking place outside of this 7-week period. In the circumstances it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of a rebate for only 7 weeks was unreasonable.
18. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of their activities and actions. Clear and accurate records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The Ombudsman released his “spotlight on knowledge and information management” report in May 2023. The seventh recommendation in this report was for landlords to develop key data recording standards across their organisations to ensure good records that support their business.
19. The resident felt there had been changes in the cleaning arrangements and asked the landlord to explain these. The evidence indicates there was a change in staff but not the contractor. However, not all of the cleaning tasks required by the scope of services were being carried out. This is evidenced by the discrepancy between what tasks the contractor said they carried out, compared to those highlighted in the scope of services document. Also, the documents provided by the landlord show the contract is for a weekly cleaning visit of 20 minutes. However, the 25 entries in the log sheets provided, show that cleaners are onsite for no longer than 10 minutes each week.
20. The landlord has not provided any cleaner attendance logs prior to September 2023. It is unreasonable that the lack of records was blamed on a locked display cabinet. If a supervisor from the contractor or landlord had inspected the block during this period, they would have identified the incomplete logs and been able to take action. This indicates a lack of oversight of the cleaning contract by the landlord.
21. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the communal cleaning in the resident’s block.

Complaint Handling

22. The landlord has a specific complaints procedure dedicated to the services provided by contractors for which residents and leaseholders pay service charges. It is a 2 stage complaints process with complaints acknowledged within 2 days and responded to within 10 working days at both stage 1 and 2.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the required time frames. However, it took 34 working days to respond at stage 1 and 33 working days to respond at stage 2. It did not provide notification or reasons for the delay at either stage of the complaint. This was a failure on the part of the landlord to comply with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time and its own complaints process.
24. The resident contacted the landlord twice regarding his concerns with the cleaning, but he got no response, which caused unnecessary frustration. It was not until he made a formal complaint that the landlord engaged with the resident. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest point in the process.
25. As part of the landlord’s complaint handling, the Code requires it to conduct an impartial investigation seeking reliable information from both parties. The landlord has shown that it asked the contractor to provide evidence to verify the cleaning was happening. However, it has not shown that it corresponded with the resident about his findings. It also did not provide any evidence that it attended the block at the time of the complaint or after, to investigate the resident’s claims. This was a failure to pursue a thorough and impartial investigation. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Management of the communal cleaning in the resident’s block.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

27. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology meets the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance amended on 17 April 2024.
28. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £320 compensation. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
    1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the landlord’s management of the communal cleaning at the resident’s block.
    2. £120 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
29. Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must review the findings in this case to ensure it has sufficient procedures in place to adequately monitor and verify its cleaning contracts are being complied with and meet the specifications set out in the contract. The landlord must provide a copy of the review to this service and the resident.
30. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.