Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202319629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319629

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

21 January 2025

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 poor maintenance of the:
   1. Scaffolding and surrounding areas.
   2. Communal areas and related cleaning.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat, located in a purpose-built block of flats (the building).
3. On 27 March 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the window in the communal hallway of the building was faulty and did not close properly. She asked the landlord to address the issue before its contractor conducted a jet wash of the scaffolding erected on the building. Additionally, the resident asked the landlord to ensure its contractor scraped off bird excrement from the scaffold before washing it, noting that on a previous occasion, the contractor failed to do so, resulting in bird excrement being dispersed across the building. She also reported that bird excrement remained all over the windows of the building.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 July 2023, regarding the poor hygiene and maintenance of the scaffolding erected on the building. She stated that she had previously asked the landlord to remove dead pigeons from the scaffolding outside of her window, but no action had been taken. Between 27 July 2023 and 9 August 2023, the resident reported additional concerns to the landlord, including her belief that nesting birds were trapped within the new insulation of the building. She also complained that the standard of cleaning in the internal communal areas was inadequate, and that she had discovered bags of dog excrement on the scaffold outside her bedroom window. She also stated that the overall communication between the landlord, its contractor, and the residents of the building was poor.
5. On 9 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in removing the dead pigeons and confirmed that it would conduct regular inspections of the scaffolding to prevent reoccurrence of the issue. The landlord explained that it had no evidence to suggest birds were trapped within the building’s insulation. However, it assured the resident that its contractor had a procedure in place to address nesting birds when the scaffolding needed to be dismantled and confirmed that any damaged insulation would be removed and replaced, as necessary.
6. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s concerns about poor communication. It noted that it issued a monthly newsletter to all residents, which included contact details for addressing specific concerns, and invited the resident to provide specific examples of poor communication so it could investigate further. Regarding the cleaning of the building, the landlord advised that it had shared the resident’s concerns with the management team responsible for overseeing the cleaning contract. It also stated that it had arranged for a separate team to carry out additional cleaning in the resident’s building.
7. On the same day, the landlord posted a notice to all residents in the building, asking them to refrain from throwing items out of their windows and warning that further tenancy action could be taken against those responsible.
8. On 14 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as she remained dissatisfied with its communication. She reported that the bags of dog excrement were still outside her window and expressed her concern that the landlord was passing responsibility to its contractor instead of taking direct ownership of resolving her concerns.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 September 2023. It confirmed that its contractor had removed the bags of dog excrement on the same day the resident initially reported the issue. The landlord explained that it believed the problem persisted because individuals were continuing to throw dog excrement out of windows. It provided photographic evidence showing that, on 5 separate occasions, bags of dog excrement had been left on the scaffolding in identical locations after previous clearances. The landlord advised that the housing officer assigned to the area had contacted the alleged perpetrator and that it would continue to monitor the situation. It also acknowledged the resident’s ongoing concerns about its communication and outlined the different forms of contact it facilitated with residents, such as focus group meetings and newsletters. However, it committed to exploring additional ways to improve its communication processes.
10. On 5 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to this service, stating that the landlord’s upkeep of the scaffolding remained poor. She reported that the building was not being cleaned, contrary to the landlord’s claims, and that its communication continued to be unsatisfactory. The resident also advised that significant damage had been caused to residents’ properties as a result of works being conducted on the building. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had offered residents £75 compensation for the damage, stating that the amount did not sufficiently reflect the scale of the damage caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident has told this service that damage has been caused to her property because of the landlord conducting works to the building, and that she is unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord has offered to address this. Since these issues were not included in the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions relating to this in this investigation. This is because the landlord must first have the opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported concerns prior to the involvement of this service. If the resident is unhappy with the quality of workmanship to the building or is concerned about damage caused to her property, she can raise a complaint directly with the landlord about this. If the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.
12. Additionally, the resident has informed us that, following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, she raised new reports about the standard of cleaning in the building and the landlord’s continued poor communication, particularly regarding difficulties in contacting her housing officer. She explained that she has reported these concerns to the landlord several times but has not received any acknowledgement. Although these issues were referenced in the resident’s formal complaint, this investigation is limited solely to the events that occurred between March 2023 and September 2023, as this marks the period up to the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord must be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to new concerns prior to the involvement of this service. However, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation regarding these matters, which is set out at the end of this report.

Legal obligations and policy framework

13. Landlords are required to assess the condition and safety of their properties and communal spaces, in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This risk-based framework is designed to identify and reduce potential hazards that pose a risk to the health and safety of residents, and includes issues related to domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse. When such hazards are identified, landlords are expected to take appropriate and timely actions to mitigate the risks and ensure the safety and wellbeing of residents.
14. The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the structure of its properties. While there is no separate policy specifically addressing the maintenance of communal spaces, the landlord has clarified that these duties are included within the scope of its housing repairs and maintenance policy.
15. The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy states that repairs fall within 3 main categories:
    1. Emergency – repairs that would cause serious danger to the health and safety of residents, or extensive damage to the building and property. These are completed within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs – repairs that may affect the comfort of residents or may cause damage to the property if not carried out urgently. These are completed within 5 working days.
    3. Routine – non urgent repairs. These are completed within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the scaffolding and surrounding areas

16. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for detailed records of the resident’s reported issues regarding the maintenance of the scaffolding erected on the building, along with evidence of the actions taken in response. While the landlord’s records show that its contractor was scheduled to scrape off bird excrement and jet wash the scaffolding, it has not provided details about the events or communication leading to the scheduling of this task or specified a date for the work. This lack of information limits the Ombudsman’s ability to fully assess the extent of any reported issues or evaluate the landlord’s actions against any agreed timeframe. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and comprehensive records of reported issues and takes care to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman. Good record-keeping is critical for demonstrating accountability, resolving issues in a timely manner, and enabling a fair assessment of its handling of complaints and maintenance responsibilities. A recommendation has been included at the end of this report to address this issue.
17. Based on the available evidence, the resident’s email on 27 March 2023 confirmed that the landlord was aware from that point of bird excrement on both the scaffolding and communal windows. Under the HHSRS, the landlord was obligated to maintain a safe and hygienic environment for residents. Reasonable action in this context would have included ensuring cleaning of the scaffolding and communal windows was completed within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the landlord should have conducted a post-inspection to confirm the cleaning was completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord’s records do not provide evidence that the cleaning of the scaffolding and communal windows was carried out, or that appropriate steps were taken to address the bird excrement. Consequently, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that, upon being notified of the issue, the landlord fulfilled its obligations under the HHSRS. This failure likely caused the resident unnecessary frustration and inconvenience, as the ongoing presence of bird excrement would have negatively impacted the cleanliness and appearance of the scaffolding communal windows. While it is noted that the scaffolding has now been removed, the landlord is ordered to arrange a clean of the communal windows to remove any bird excrement, if it has not done so already.
18. The landlord’s records show that on 12 July 2023, the resident reported to its contractor that, over the past few weeks, she had been raising concerns about dead pigeons on the scaffolding outside her window and within the building’s insulation. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident also reported that bags of dog excrement were being left on the scaffolding outside her window. The landlord does not have a policy outlining response times for reports of this nature, and because it did not acknowledge the resident’s report at the time, the Ombudsman cannot determine what timescales the landlord deemed reasonable for responding to these issues. However, given the significant hygiene and safety concerns posed by decomposing pigeons and bags of dog excrement in such visible and intrusive locations, it would have reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s reports upon receipt and provide a clear timeframe for when each matter would be resolved. This approach would have ensured the resident was kept informed and that the issues were addressed in a timely manner. The evidence confirms that the pigeons were removed almost a week after the landlord had been made aware on 12 July 2023, and the bags of dog excrement were removed 2 weeks after it had been made aware on 19 July 2023. The failure to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset demonstrated poor handling of her reports, leading the resident to express a sense of defeat that her concerns were not being addressed adequately.
19. That said, we note that in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that action should have been taken sooner to address both issues, and committed to conducting weekly inspections of the scaffolding. This recognition and the commitment to preventative measures demonstrated an effort to take accountability for its shortcomings and to prevent similar issues in the future. Additionally, the evidence shows that it issued a notice to all residents in the building, reminding them not to throw items out of the windows. Furthermore, during a monitoring period between 17 August 2023 until 30 August 2023, the landlord instructed its contractor to provide photographic evidence confirming the removal of the bags of dog excrement. This not only verified that cleaning had taken place but also aimed to help identify those responsible for the issue. These steps demonstrated a reasonable effort by the landlord to manage the situation and deter similar incidents in the future.
20. Finally, regarding the landlord’s communication, the resident has informed this service that between 12 April 2023 and 21 August 2023, she contacted either the landlord or its contractor on at least 8 separate occasions to report the poor hygiene of the scaffolding, but no action was taken by the landlord. Additionally, the resident’s complaint to the landlord highlighted her dissatisfaction with communication between the landlord, its contractor, and residents. While the landlord’s records do not reflect all reports the resident made, evidence sent to us by the resident suggests that she made several phone calls that were not recorded and sent emails that have not been included in the evidence submitted by the landlord. This indicates that the landlord’s records may not fully account for all reports made by the resident, undermining the reliability of its record-keeping. Still, the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses acknowledged the resident’s concerns and outlined steps taken to improve communication with residents, which demonstrated a reasonable effort to address her dissatisfaction. In addition to asking the resident to provide examples of its poor communication, it would have been more reasonable for the landlord to proactively review its own records, including contact logs with both its in-house team and contractor to assess whether the resident’s reports had been handled appropriately. This approach would have demonstrated greater accountability and allowed the landlord to identify and address any shortcomings in its communication process.
21. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it removed bird excrement from the scaffolding and communal windows. It also delayed removing dead pigeons and bags of dog excrement from the scaffolding in a timely manner. Additionally, its poor record-keeping further undermined its handling of the resident’s reports. Collectively, these failings have led the Ombudsman to determine maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the scaffolding and surrounding areas. While the landlord acknowledged some of its failings during the complaints process, demonstrating an awareness of where its service fell short, it did not provide adequate redress to resolve the complaint satisfactorily, or to fully address the impact of its failings on the resident.
22. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out this service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of maladministration, where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident but caused no permanent impact, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy from £100, to put things right. In view of this, the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in this section of the report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas

23. On 27 March 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the communal window was stuck in an open position and asked for it to be repaired. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report 4 working days later, stating that its contractor would investigate the issue. This acknowledgement offered reassurance to the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously. Following this, in line with either its emergency or urgent repairs timescales, the landlord’s contractor should have inspected the window to assess whether it posed a safety risk to the residents in the building. Although the landlord updated the resident on 12 April 2023, assuring her that the communal window would be closed during the cleaning of the scaffolding, there are no further records to evidence whether an inspection of the window took place, whether the window was repaired, or why a repair may not have been necessary. This lack of evidence has led the Ombudsman to reasonably conclude that the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns, thereby failing to fulfil its obligation to ensure the safety of its residents. The resident has told this service that the communal window remains faulty. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to arrange an inspection of the window and conduct any necessary repairs to ensure it is safe, secure, and functions properly, allowing it to open and close as intended.
24. In addition, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not address the issue of a faulty communal window in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints despite the resident raising concerns about this issue as part of her other reports. A full and thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns should have included a discussion with the resident about all outstanding issues in dispute. This would have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (available on our website), which emphasises the importance of a proactive and resident-focused approach to complaint handling. The Code highlights that landlords should ensure all issues raised by a resident are considered and addressed, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the formal complaint. This approach reflects fairness, accountability, and a commitment to resolving matters comprehensively and effectively. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to fully address the resident’s concerns.
25. The resident reported to the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted that the cleaning of the building was poor and committed to conducting additional cleaning visits. This response demonstrated some accountability for its poor service and maintenance of the communal areas. However, in response to this service’s enquiries, the landlord explained that the contracted cleaning company at the time of the resident’s complaint did not keep cleaning logs. This suggests that the landlord had no oversight of the standard of work being conducted and did not effectively monitor the commitments made in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also informed us that its resident liaison officer and neighbourhood supervisor conducted weekly floor walks to check the condition of the building. While this may be the case, no evidence has been provided to show when these inspections took place, or what was recorded to demonstrate that the cleaning of the building was being maintained at an acceptable level. As such, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord adequately monitored the cleaning of the building or ensured that its commitments to the resident were being met. This lack of oversight falls below reasonable expectations and undermines the trust and accountability required in managing communal areas effectively.
26. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it adequately addressed the resident’s report of the communal window being faulty or that it ensured the communal areas were cleaned to an acceptable standard. The Ombudsman has therefore determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas. While the landlord accepted that the cleaning in the resident’s building was poor, it did not provide appropriate redress to resolve the complaint satisfactorily, or to fully address the impact of its failings on the resident.
27. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in this section of the report.
28. The landlord has informed us that an in-house cleaning team took over cleaning of the building in December 2023. This change represents a positive step toward having greater oversight of the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. However, as noted earlier in this report, the resident remains dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning in the communal areas of the building and has stated that her concerns are not being addressed. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord raises a formal complaint for the resident regarding her continued dissatisfaction with the cleaning of the communal areas. The landlord should ensure it responds to the resident’s complaint in line with its published complaints policy, addressing any concerns thoroughly and taking any necessary steps to improve the standard of cleaning.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the scaffolding and surrounding areas.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange for a thorough clean of the communal windows to remove any bird excrement, if it has not done so already. The landlord should ensure that photographic evidence of the completed cleaning is captured and shared with the resident and this service.
    2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
       1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures relating to its poor maintenance of the scaffolding and surrounding areas
       2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures relating to its poor maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas
    3. Arrange an inspection of the communal window and conduct any necessary repairs to ensure it is safe, secure, and functions properly, allowing it to open and close as intended.
32. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

33. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure that it is maintaining accurate, complete, and accessible records of all resident interactions, including reports made directly to its contractors. This review should focus on improving systems and processes to ensure that all records are properly logged and readily available for reference, enabling the landlord to respond effectively and efficiently to resident concerns.
34. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord raises a formal complaint for the resident regarding her continued dissatisfaction with the cleaning of the communal areas and issues relating to the availability and communication of her housing officer. The landlord should ensure it responds to the resident’s complaint in line with its published complaints policy, thoroughly addressing her concerns and taking any necessary steps to improve both the standard of cleaning and the effectiveness of its communication.