Peabody Trust (202307796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307796

Peabody Trust

17 October 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 concerns regarding:
1. The level and reasonableness of communal cleaning and management costs payable through the service charge.
2. The standard of cleaning in the communal areas of his block.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background

The residents are joint leaseholders of a 2-bedroom flat on the eleventh floor of a block. The lease commenced in June 2021.
The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents on its system.
The residents raised concerns regarding the standard of cleaning within the communal areas of the block on 10 January 2022 and again on 16 June 2022.
On 4 July 2022, the residents raised a formal complaint through the landlord’s online complaint form regarding the quality of the cleaning in the communal areas. The residents said they had been complaining for “months” about the standard of cleaning but there had been no improvement. The residents stated:
1. The rooftop area had not been properly cleaned for weeks/months and the mirrors in the lift were unclean.
2. Residents were paying for a full-time caretaker, but they were rarely on the premises. If the caretaker was unable to do the job, they needed to be replaced.
3. Residents should not have to pay for a full–time caretaker when they were part-time.
The residents requested a refund of the service charge during the past year for the lack of proper cleaning service provided in the communal areas.
The landlord’s Caretaking Services Manager (CSM) emailed the resident on 3 August 2022 stating regular weekly monitoring and monthly block inspections were carried out which showed the cleaning service was to a good standard. However, it accepted there were some issues within the communal areas which the onsite caretaker may have missed. It said its caretaking team supervisor (CTS) was making arrangements to deep clean the block and as previously requested, the lobby and lift area of their block would now be cleaned on a Saturday and Sunday morning.
In an email on 8 August 2022, the residents disputed that the cleaning at the block was to a good standard and outlined additional concerns including about trash left in the corridor not being cleared for days and smear marks in the lifts. He said cleaning at the weekends had been non-existent.
Following this the landlord deep cleaned the block and bin rooms and on 24 August 2022, sent the residents an inspection report including photos. In its response dated 30 August 2022 the landlord said the report showed that the lifts, lobbies, landings, and stairwells were “clean and pristine”. In their replies, the residents said they had never seen the communal areas including the lifts and the rooftop as clean but expressed concern that this had not been the case for the past year. They asked to meet the CSM on site for a further impromptu inspection and to discuss the issues.
The landlord’s CSM visited the residents at the block on 16 September 2022 to jointly inspect the communal areas.
On 8 November 2022, the residents chased the landlord for the response to their formal complaint, and on 25 November 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. This stated:
1. It had spoken to the CTS who checked and monitored the cleaning and found that the cleaning at the residents’ block was to a good standard. This was confirmed during visits by the CSM.
2. As residents from the block were unhappy with block cleaning, its staff held a meeting for all residents on 13 September 2022 and then agreed to meet with the residents on 16 September 2022 to jointly inspect the block at this time.
3. During the inspection, marks on the internal walls throughout the block and smudges in the lifts were noticed. The residents agreed there had been an improvement with cleaning inside lifts, but the frames and runners needed some attention.
4. All the other cleaning concerns were within the residents’ lounge, cinema room and the outside balcony to the gym which was cleaned by an external cleaning contractor.
5. Following its joint inspection, it instructed the onsite caretaker to thoroughly clean all areas of lifts on every floor and spot clean walls.
6. To address the residents’ other cleaning concerns, it had contacted the operations manager of the external cleaning contractor and arranged for them all to meet on 29 September 2022.
7. During a previous inspection on 17 May 2022, it identified communal areas required more attention from the caretaker, such as spot cleaning internal walls, removing cobwebs and marks along the skirting. A deep clean was then carried out addressing all these concerns.
The landlord stated it viewed all complaints as an opportunity to learn from resident’s experiences. In the residents’ case it could report that because of the complaint, staff had been reminded of the importance of having that attention to detail whilst carrying out their cleaning duties.
On 8 February 2023, the residents asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 stating:
1. Its stage 1 response did not address their request to be partially reimbursed the cleaning cost (through service charge) for the lack of appropriate cleaning standards provided for some time, and the landlord’s management fees due to its lack of oversight.
2. They were surprised that the landlord had stated it had seen good standards of cleaning, as during the visit of 16 September 2022 the landlord had acknowledged this was not the case. This was also supported by all the evidence they had sent to the landlord.
3. While the landlord stated, “it’s not that bad” and that it “had seen worse” this was not good enough. Residents of the block expected a higher standard based on them paying for a full-time caretaker.
4. Many other aspects of poor cleaning were identified during the inspection than stated in its stage 1 response including:
  1. Lifts – outer lifts doors, lift-runs and internal doors, and mirrors not thoroughly cleaned and with smudges.
  2. Communal rooftop – cobwebs in multiple places, cigarette butts and other trash not picked up, and a door was dirty and full of fingerprints.
  3. Internal walls – wall marks throughout the building since these were not maintained regularly.
  4. Bin store – very rarely deep cleaned with frequent flies and smells; high traffic areas such as the lobby, bin store and corridor not cleaned regularly enough.
The residents stated while the quality of cleaning had now improved, it was incorrect to say that during the inspection the cleaning was deemed to be of good condition by the landlord. Regarding the areas cleaned by the external cleaning company, although in general the areas were relatively well cleaned, more attention still needed to be paid in the fitness room as there was always dust and hairs on the floor. Additionally, the residents said some of the stain marks remained on the upholstery in these areas but cleaning on the weekends had now improved.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident explaining the action taken since his stage 1 complaint to improve cleaning in the communal areas within his block. This included a deep clean of the upholstery in the fitness room and asking the caretaker to pay more attention to high traffic areas which he had done on a weekly basis. It asked the residents if they still wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2 to which the residents confirmed they did.
On 21 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it would provide a stage 2 response by 22 March 2023. It then extended the deadline to 5 April 2023 to provide a “fair and reasonable” response.
On 24 February 2023, the resident complained that there had been no cleaning at the block for the past 2 days. The landlord replied that the caretaker was absent, but it had put in place cover arrangements.
On 5 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This stated:
1. Regarding the residents’ request for cleaning cost to be partially reimbursed, it was sorry but it would not be reimbursing this cost as it had been able to provide evidence of regular cleaning activities.
2. Cleaning in the communal areas was informally inspected each week by the CTM on site visits. The caretakers used a recording method via an application on their phone which evidenced the daily clean.
3. While every effort was made to ensure full cover was provided when the caretaker or other member of staff was absent, unfortunately it may not always be possible to cover full duties. There was a shortage of agency staff, and so it had to arrange cover where it could without use of external agency staff. However, it had and would continue to make “every effort” to ensure the building gets an adequate clean during the caretaker’s absence.
4. The caretaking team had produced evidence of some residents from the block using the roof garden as a dog toilet, smoking on the roof even after no smoking signs were put up, dumping rubbish on bin area floors, and when asked to put it in the bins they had verbally abused the caretaker.
5. It noted the residents’ said that a lot of the issues had now been addressed, and there had been a significant improvement in the cleaning quality.
6. It was in touch with Head of Estate Services (HES) to provide a follow-on response, and to investigate any further concerns. It could also request that the residents be alerted when it was next on site for their estate inspection.
7. It had also provided feedback to the HES regarding the residents’ comments that more attention needed to be paid to the fitness rooms. An action plan would be compiled to resolve any outstanding issues.
8. It was offering £125 in compensation for the poor administration of the complaint and for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.

Assessment and findings

Outside of Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Also, paragraph 42.f states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
Throughout their communications with the landlord, the residents raised concerns about the level and reasonableness of the communal cleaning and management costs payable through the service charge. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 42.d and 42.f, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint regarding these issues as these types of complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT). The resident is aware that he may need to consider making a claim via the FTT in relation to this complaint. However, this investigation will consider the concerns raised regarding the quality of the landlord’s cleaning service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas of his block.

In accordance with the leasehold agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep the communal areas and facilities in a neat and tidy condition.
In accordance with its estate management policy, the landlord provided an (in-house) caretaking service to carry out cleaning in the communal areas at the resident’s block. It also used an external contractor for cleaning in areas including the lounge/cinema room and fitness suites.
When issues with this service were reported to it, the landlord was obliged to investigate to determine whether the cleaning services were being delivered to a reasonable standard.
The landlord’s estate management policy states it carries out regular estate inspections to monitor communal areas. As such this Service expects the landlord to show through its regular inspections that the quality of cleaning was reasonable, and areas found to be unsatisfactory brought up to standard within a reasonable timeframe.
It is evident that the residents initially raised concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas in January 2022 and again in June 2022. As the residents believed there had been no improvement in the cleaning service provided, they raised a formal complaint on 4 July 2022. In its initial response dated 3 August 2022, the landlord stated weekly monitoring and monthly block inspections showed the cleaning service at the block was to a good standard although it accepted there were issues within the communal areas which the onsite caretaker “may have missed”. It told the residents it was making arrangements to deep clean the block, and also said the lobby and lift area would now be cleaned on a Saturday and Sunday mornings by the external cleaning company to ensure communal areas were clean throughout the week.
By committing to take action to improve the quality of the cleaning in the communal areas, the landlord responded appropriately. However, given the residents initially complained at least 6 months previously, we would expect the landlord to have already taken steps to investigate and resolve any aspects of its service that it had found to be lacking.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence of the inspections referred to by the landlord since 2021 as well as any communal cleaning logs and feedback from contractors in relation to communal cleaning. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep such records to track and monitor the delivery of its services and contracts. Very little in the way of such evidence has been provided including weekly monitoring and monthly inspections. This is indicative of poor knowledge and information management (KIM). As a result, the landlord has failed to establish that it carried out regular inspections or that these showed cleaning in the communal areas was to a reasonable standard as suggested.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to an inspection on 17 May 2022, when it said it identified that communal areas required more attention from the caretakers, such as spot cleaning internal walls, removing cobwebs and marks along the skirting. While in its 3 August 2022 response, the landlord stated that its caretaking team had taken steps to address these issues. Again due to no inspection reports or cleaning logs, the landlord has not demonstrated that the standard of cleaning at the block improved following its May 2022 inspection.
However, following the resident’s formal complaint, it is evident that the landlord took action to address the resident’s reports of poor-quality cleaning in the communal areas. In August 2022, it carried out deep cleaning within the block and bin areas and sent the residents an inspection report containing photos (not provided to this Service). In their reply at the time, the residents acknowledged that the communal areas including the rooftop and lifts were cleaned to an acceptable standard although reiterated this had not been the case for the past year. As the residents were concerned about the landlord’s ability to maintain this standard of cleaning, they asked that the landlord’s CSM meet them at the block to jointly inspect the communal areas, and a joint inspection was agreed for 16 September 2022. While this inspection took place, the landlord has not provided any notes of its findings from the inspection. Given that the standard of cleaning in the communal areas was the subject of the complaint, the lack of any record of this inspection is further evidence of poor KIM by the landlord and constitutes a failing.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord referenced the 16 September 2022 inspection and acknowledged that marks on the internal walls throughout the block and “a few smudges” in the lifts had been identified. It also mentioned issues within the residents’ lounge, cinema room and the outside balcony to the gym which it explained was cleaned by the external cleaning contractor. It said following the inspection it had instructed the caretaker to thoroughly clean all areas of the lifts on every floor level and spot clean the walls. It also said it had arranged to meet the external contractor on site on 29 September 2022.
By explaining what action it had taken, and intended to take to address the issues found during the 16 September 2022 inspection, this indicates the landlord accepted that further action was needed to ensure cleaning was to a reasonable standard. This was appropriate and shows it was taking the complaint seriously. However, no record of the aforementioned meeting with the external cleaning contractor has been supplied to this Service or of its instruction to the caretaker to thoroughly clean all areas of the lifts on every floor. Again, the landlord’s failure to evidence referenced actions taken to improve aspects of the cleaning service, is further evidence of poor KIM.
Furthermore, in their stage 2 complaint, the residents disagreed with the landlord’s comments in the stage 1 response that only marks on the internal walls and smudges in the lifts were identified during the joint inspection on 16 September 2022. They said the landlord had also agreed that the lift doors, lift-runs and internal doors needed further cleaning as well as the communal rooftop and bin store. This suggests ongoing issues with the quality of cleaning provided at that time despite the improvement in the service provided during the previous month in August 2022.
The residents however acknowledged that there was then an improvement in the quality of cleaning both from the caretaker and external cleaning company during the 2 to 3 months since its stage 1 response. This indicates the actions the landlord set out in its stage 1 response were more effective and led to an improvement the quality of cleaning. Nonetheless, this Service has not seen any inspection reports to confirm this which is of concern.
Shortly after the residents’ stage 2 escalation request however, they reported further instances of poor-quality cleaning in the communal areas, which they photographed and sent to the landlord. The landlord explained to the residents that the caretaker was absent (for around 2 weeks from around 24 February 2023) but that it had put in place arrangements for colleagues to cover their duties. In its final response, the landlord addressed this report and said efforts had been made to ensure the block was adequately cleaned during the caretaker’s absence, but acknowledged it was not always possible to cover full duties.
The landlord’s internal communications show it appropriately contacted the caretaking team at the time this report was made to query cover arrangements during the caretaker’s absence. Accounts from its staff confirmed they had taken reasonable steps to arrange for colleagues to cover. However, due to staff shortages and the availability of agency staff, they had not aways been able provide a full clean of the communal areas. The evidence suggests that on at least 2 days no cleaning cover was provided.
While it was appropriate that the landlord explained the circumstances, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider offering to adjust or reduce the cleaning charge applicable for this period to reflect the lack of full cleaning service provided. There is no evidence of it doing so.
In its final response the landlord also explained the barriers that had been experienced by its staff in providing its cleaning service to the communal areas at the block. This included when antisocial behaviour led to excess rubbish and mess left in the communal , and occasions when the communal roof had been used as a dog toilet. It also said its staff were verbally abused after asking individuals to put items in the bin. It is clear these issues had been reported internally to the landlord and as such it was reasonable for the landlord to highlight this. Nonetheless, good practice would be for the landlord to have also raised an action plan to address these issues and inform the residents of such. There is no evidence of it doing so.
The residents were also unhappy that the landlord had not addressed their requests for a refund of communal cleaning and management elements of the service charge in its stage 1 response. In its final response the landlord explained that it did not agree to refund the service fee. It said it had provided evidence of its cleaning activities.
While this service is satisfied that the landlord was providing a cleaning service in respect of the communal areas in accordance to its obligation under the lease, the residents’ complaint related to the standard of cleaning service provided in respect to the communal areas. Its response therefore was unreasonable.
In summary, this investigation found the residents raised concerns about the cleaning service as early as January 2022 yet in its responses to the formal complaint the landlord acknowledged inspections it carried out in May and September 2022 still revealed aspects of the communal cleaning that needed further attention. This indicates there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in bringing about sufficient improvement to the cleaning service provided. It is evident that the landlord subsequently worked with its caretaking team and external contractor to make changes which led to a higher standard of cleaning being provided. However, the lack of records of its inspections throughout the timeframe investigated means it has failed to properly demonstrate this.
Therefore, due to the delays in implementing adequate improvements to the cleaning service following the residents’ report and the landlord’s unsatisfactory KIM, this constitutes maladministration by the landlord. In the circumstances it is reasonable to order the landlord pay the residents £300 in compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused because of its failings. This is within the range recommended in the landlord’s compensation policy for ‘moderate disruption’ caused. Its policy described this as either low impact but high effort to resolve or high impact but low effort to resolve. This service is satisfied this amount is proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint handling.

The residents raised a formal complaint on 4 July 2022. While the landlord acknowledged this complaint on 6 July 2022 which was within an appropriate timescale, it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until a further 101 working days later on 25 November 2022. The length of time taken by the landlord to provide a formal response significantly exceeded the 10 working days timescale stated in its complaints procedure. Furthermore, its response was only provided after the resident chased the landlord for this on 8 November 2022.
The landlord however did provide informal responses to the residents during this timeframe including on 3 and 30 August 2022 when it explained its position in relation to points raised in the complaint. However, these responses made no reference to the complaints process, Further, the landlord did not provide any explanation as to why it was responding to the complaint outside of its complaint process. The landlord’s actions would have caused confusion to the residents as it was unclear at which stage of its process their complaint was at.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 5 April 2023 which was 40 working days after the residents’ request to escalate their complaint on 8 February 2023. It is clear the delay stemmed from a delay by the landlord in logging the stage 2 complaint. Rather than acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days as per its process, the landlord responded within this timeframe but asked the residents if they still wanted to escalate their complaint after explaining the improvements it had made to the cleaning service. This was inappropriate as the residents had already been clear about wanting to escalate the complaint to the next stage of its process.
While we acknowledge that this was only a minor delay, together with the delay at stage 1, this prolonged the complaints process for the residents and ultimately delayed the resolution of their complaint. This constitutes unsatisfactory complaint handling by the landlord.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in providing its complaint responses. However, it incorrectly stated it had provided its stage 1 response on 3 August 2022 while in fact this was not provided until nearly 4 months later (25 November 2022). This was inappropriate.
The landlord offered £125 in compensation to the residents in recognition for the delays in providing its responses. While the redress provided went some way to putting right its failings, given the delays at both stages of its process and the failure of the landlord to fully acknowledge this by referencing an inaccurate date for its stage 1 complaint response, on balance the redress provided was insufficient to resolve the failings identified in this investigation. This indicates there was service failure by the landlord while handling the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraphs 42.d and 42.f of the Scheme, the resident’s concern regarding the reasonableness and level of the communal cleaning and management costs payable through the service charge is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns raised about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas of his block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
1. Provides the residents with an apology for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pays the residents additional compensation of £375 (£500 including the £125 offered during the complaints process) made up of:
  1. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings in its response to concerns raised about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas of his block.
  2. £75 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while complaint handling.
3. Provides us with a review of the failings identified in this investigation including:
  1. The lack of evidence provided to this Service to show regular estate inspections were carried out in accordance with its estate management policy.
  2. The delay in providing the stage 1 response and escalating the residents’ complaint through its complaints procedure.
  3. What changes it can make to its process to avoid the same issues reoccurring.
4. Provides us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.