A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202009687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009687

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the standard of cleaning and maintenance in the communal areas, including the bin store.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is one bedroom flat in a block of 34 flats overlooking a retail space. There is a bin store area outside of the property by the main entrance.
The copy of the original lease sets out the landlord’s obligation to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the common parts and so far as possible keep the common parts cleaned. The common parts include the bin store area.
In September 2019 the resident moved into the flat and had an ongoing issue with the bin store. Historically her surveyor identified a problem of overflowing rubbish by the bin store which the landlord had addressed before she proceeded with the purchase (according to the resident’s communication). The resident said that the issues were still occurring. In her complaint correspondence, she said that she sent the landlord pictures and emails and reported issues on a weekly basis. The resident described the problem as rubbish being left inside of the floor cupboard and footpath outside of the cupboard.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the entirety of the resident’s emails to the landlord during this time. However, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails in the context of explaining why it had not responded to each of these (in its complaint response, below). The records also show an acknowledgement of the resident’s communication in October 2019.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord logged the resident’s formal complaint (by telephone). The resident complained that:
1. The estate cleaning services had not attended to clean the block and there was rubbish in the street.
2. The resident wanted a response from a specific member of staff.
On 23 January 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to seek more details about the complaint. It asked questions such as how long the estate cleaning had not attended for, if she had raised this before, which specific customer service she was referring to and if she could detail any messages she had left for the member of staff or whether this was a complaint about the staff.
On 30 January 2020 the resident and landlord discussed the case by telephone. The resident said:
1. The bin store lock was broken and apparently had issues for years.
2. The member of staff she was in contact with had received emails “every week” but the situation had not improved, the lock had been fixed but this had broken again, and the resident wanted to propose a solution to find out why people were not using the bin store (properly).
3. The resident queried the use of the CCTV and explained that it would help to use this to identify and fine offending residents. At the moment, there were two CCTV (one looking at the bins and one inside).
4. The resident said that she was not told when the cleaners were due to come and did not know when the council attend to empty (the bins).
On 4 February 2020 the landlord’s records said that the bin store had been cleared out and they were attending again to disinfect it. In the landlord’s investigation records, it noted the difficulty in changing resident driven behaviour, in the context of considering the issue of residents not disposing rubbish in adherence with reminders by the landlord about this.
Evidence of the reminders sent to residents has not been seen.
On 4 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident following its discussion about the complaint the week before. This was the stage one response.
1. It said that it spoke with Environmental Services who were alerted to the issue on 31 January 2020 and arranged for the area to be cleaned; the landlord asked the resident to confirm if this looked better.
2. The leasehold team said it would raise the issue with Environmental Services separately so that they could take it up with the cleaning provider. The landlord said that the resident should continue to report issues to the team so that they could log and monitor it.
3. It apologised for the resident’s experience in raising repairs and provided an explanation. It said that it had changed the system that the contact centre used and there was a staff turnover which resulted in a slower response; it said that the staff posts were filled and after a short training period it expected services to resume. It gave the resident directions on how to log repairs in the meantime.
4. The leasehold team spoke to the member of staff about the lack of response to emails. The landlord said that the issues raised were primarily about the bulk waste, fly tipping and use of the bin store area. It said that it did ask the resident to notify it of issues but it would not necessarily respond to each email if the theme was the same.
5. It said that it accepted that the waste issue was frustrating for residents and it was doing what it could to change resident behaviour; it regularly reminded residents of how to dispose of both household and bulk waste and would continue to work with residents to remind them of their responsibilities to maintain the communal areas.
6. It said that the resident could see the tasks carried out by the cleaners on an attendance sheet.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 February 2020.
1. She said that the area was cleaned “only today” and there were no longer black bags and the internal stairs looked ok, however, the cleaners forgot to clean a separate area in the property (the lift).
2. She said that the issue had been ongoing for years and her surveyor raised the issue in July before she purchased the flat. She had been raising the issue “on a weekly basis” since September 2019 and it had been monitored enough and needed a long term solution.
3. Regarding the repairs, she said that the lack of enough providers and system disruptions had nothing to do with internal turnover. This required urgent attention and it was not acceptable to wait three weeks for a roof repair (in connection to a report about damp, which is a separate issue).
4. The resident disputed the accuracy of the landlord’s summary of issue regarding the lack of response to her emails. The resident encouraged the landlord to look at all the emails received from her and issues logged on the system since September 2019. She said that she raised bulk waste (not fly tipping) and it was not acted on. The resident explained that the use of bin store went together with the conversation she had with the member of staff about people leaving rubbish outside of the storage and CCTV not being used to monitor and find the offending residents.
5. The resident said that the answers that she had received were limited to apologies and she was concerned that her reports were not improving the situation and that this would persist.
6. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s statement about changing resident behaviour. She stated that more could be done (than leaving notices in different areas of the building) such as meeting with residents to discuss how to prevent the issue, fining offenders and demonstrating empathy and understanding towards the situation.
7. The resident explained that she was very unhappy and frustrated in dealing with a company that had no interest in taking care of their customers and ensuring an adequate service for the amount of money paid every month.
8. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the location of the attendance sheet and disputed that signing this meant that the tasks were performed up to the required standards. She referred to a photograph of the lift in the morning as an example.
9. The resident asked for a call to discuss this further (this was not performed).
On 7 February 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of the complaint to stage two. It said that it would offer the response by 5 March 2020.
The resident told the Ombudsman that in February 2020 she was put in touch with a member of staff and they were exchanging emails to try and find solutions together.
On 26 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response.
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and explained that recent changes had slowed down its communication with residents and offered £25.
2. It understood the complaint was about bulk refuse waste being stored and the cost of removing this.
3. It said that the cost of removing items should not be placed on all residents through the service charge and where it could identify offending residents then it would charge them directly.
4. It said it asked a member of staff to consider what measures it could put into place to try to resolve the issues for the residents and the member of staff would be in contact directly on these issues.
5. It did not comment on the resident’s query about extending the scope of the CCTV (to identify and fine residents) and having meetings with residents.
The resident provided details of her dissatisfaction about the issues after March 2020, including changes in her point of contact, comments about key fob access, pest activity, a request to change the scope of the CCTV (so that it traced resident activity from the bin store up to their doors) and concerns about the landlord’s handover in its handling of her communication (September 2020).
The events after March 2020 are not within the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the standard of cleaning and maintenance to the communal areas, specifically the bin store area, during the relevant complaint period. The resident subsequently raised another complaint about the similar and new issues, but this was resolved by the landlord and the resident did not bring this to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

It is acknowledged that the matters have since progressed and subject to a further complaint. This investigation has been into the landlord’s historic response (from around September 2019 – March 2020).
The landlord is obliged to maintain the common parts and so far as possible keep the common parts cleaned. The common parts include the bin store area.
The resident said that she contacted the landlord about the issues on a weekly basis since she moved in September 2019. Evidence of the entirety of the communication was not seen, however, the communication was not disputed.
The landlord said that while it had encouraged the resident to report issues, it did not respond to the resident’s reports each time if the theme was the same. This was unreasonable. The landlord failed to evidence that it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports before she raised her formal complaint in January 2020.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the options available to proactively investigate and diagnose the issues, where it was receiving repeated or multiple reports of the same thing. Had there been a problem with the volume of information which the resident was sending to the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to engage with its appropriate policy to manage the resident’s contact, rather than not reply at all. This is so that it could make sure that it appropriately logged and responded to new or ongoing reports, and that these were not missed.
The complaint which the resident raised to the landlord was about the lack of resolution to the bin store issues, reports that cleaning services had not attended to clean the block and reports of rubbish in the street. The resident’s concerns were that the bin store outside of the main entrance was “continually left to overflow, which means that rubbish is left on the floor inside the bin store, on the floor outside and the footpath next to it”.
The landlord and resident did not dispute that there was an attendance shortly after the resident complained, but the resident disputed that other parts of the block (such as the lifts) were cleaned. It is unclear whether the landlord registered this specific concern; at one stage it pointed out the attendance sheet to the resident but this was not evidenced to the Ombudsman.
The landlord referenced action which it had taken, such as reminding residents of how to dispose of waste and their responsibilities for the communal area. However, evidence of this has not been seen.
It is not known whether the bins had reached full capacity, causing residents to leave their rubbish on the floor, or whether there was another reason why the bins were overflowing, such as access issues. Under the scope of this investigation, the landlord did not evidence that it carried out an investigation into the cause of the issue, which would have been reasonable to do so.
The landlord said that staff would be in contact with the resident regarding the issues. The landlord’s actions in arranging this have not been seen, however, the resident corroborated this action. She confirmed that in February 2020 a member of staff was in discussion with her about finding a solution. This was reasonable.
The resident proposed actions which she considered that the landlord could take, such as meetings with residents and use the CCTV to monitor resident activity. The Ombudsman has not assessed the merits of the resident’s suggestions, it has only considered if the landlord responded reasonably. The landlord did not evidence its response to this at all. It would have been reasonable to respond and engage with the resident who was evidently concerned about the impact of the situation and wanted a long-term solution. The landlord did not take the opportunity to address the resident’s queries about the CCTV.
The landlord responded to the resident two weeks after it agreed to under the complaint process; it acknowledged the delay by way of an apology and £25 compensation. This was reasonable, although it is not clear that the resident understood that this amount was for the communication delay (and not for the main complaint).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report about the standard of cleaning and maintenance, including to the bin store area.

Reasons

The landlord has not evidenced its investigation into the full breadth of the resident’s reports about the cleaning and maintenance, including the bin store area. It did not evidence the actions which it had said it had taken and it did not respond at all on some occasions. Therefore, it did not respond reasonably to the resident’s reports about cleaning and maintenance in the communal area, including the bin store, during the period of September 2019 – March 2020.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £120 for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.