Optivo (202010828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010828

Optivo

29 July 2021

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 resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reports about:
1. The standard of the cleaning to communal areas.
2. The conduct of the Scheme Manager.
3. The conduct of the Scheme Manager towards another resident.
4. Testing of a fire alarm panel and a subsequent fault.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about the Scheme Manager’s conduct toward another resident that lives in the property.
Paragraph 25(a) and (e) of the Scheme explains that a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord or, an authorised representative of such person, can make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
We will not review the complaint about the Scheme Manager’s conduct towards the other resident, as this does not concern the resident’s housing.
In addition to this, the resident has raised issues that have occurred after the complaint finalised the complaint procedure in July 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, we will not review the landlord’s responses to these issues, as such matters were not brought as part of this complaint to the landlord and have not yet exhausted its complaint process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord’s property since February 2017. The property is a one-bedroom flat within a retirement housing scheme, which has a Scheme Manager. The Scheme Manager’s senior is the Team Manager.
The landlord has explained that during the Covid-19 pandemic, its cleaning services were adjusted, with cleaners being asked to concentrate on ‘touch points’ such as door handles, push plates and handrails. It has noted that during the pandemic, it was reviewing the cleaning to each block “on its own merit”. If concerns about the standard of cleaning was raised during the pandemic, an inspection could be requested by the Estate Services Team.
It also notes that during the pandemic, only a small number of staff could be at the scheme at any time so social distancing could apply when using the facilities.

Estate Service standards

The landlord’s estate service booklet states that it will inspect the quality of the cleaning carried out to a block, sub-block or converted property, against its standard.
The landlord has a scoring system for its cleaning standard for both internal and external areas. It sets out the cleaning standard for specific internal and external areas, and the scores it applies for each standard. It states that if cleaning does not meet a score of three or above by its standards, residents can report this.

Complaints against Optivo

The landlord’s complaints policy states that line managers investigate complaints about the conduct or performance of staff members, and this includes:
1. A recorded meeting with the member of staff.
2. The line manager contacting the customer to advise on actions even if no actions are required.
3. File notes and checks against procedures.

Summary of events

On 30 December 2019, the resident raised concerns about the standard of cleaning in communal areas with the Scheme Manager.
After the conversation, the Scheme Manager made a report to their Team Manager about the resident’s conduct. The Team Manager called the resident to discuss the concern raised, and the call was reportedly terminated by the resident. The landlord decided not to take any further action against the resident at that time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2020, with a formal complaint about the Scheme Manager. They said that:
1. They were not happy with the Scheme Manager’s conduct during the interaction they had with them on 30 December 2019.
2. During this interaction, they raised concerns about the cleaning of the internal communal areas and did not feel that the response from the Scheme Manager was satisfactory.
3. They believed the property would benefit from the withdrawal of the Scheme Manager service.
On 18 May 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord again with another complaint concerning the Scheme Manager. In the complaint they:
1. Said that their previous complaint had not been responded to.
2. Explained that they were not happy with the Scheme Manager’s response to a recent report of an altercation they had with their neighbour.
3. Reiterated their concerns about how the manager had dealt with the previous reports made concerning the cleaning.
4. Said that they believed the fire alarm was not being tested and communal repairs were not being completed by the Scheme Manager.
5. Said that the Scheme Manager was asking residents when cleaners and gardeners arrive however, it was not resident’s responsibility to provide this information.
6. Repeated that they felt that the property would benefit from the removal of the Scheme Manager, with resident’s taking on the role instead.
7. Reported concerns about the standard of the cleaning being carried and the amount of time the cleaners spent. They said that they had asked the landlord if the days the cleaners attended could be changed and this was refused with no reason provided.
On the 21 May, a fault to the fire panel in the scheme was reported. Its contractor attended the same day and reported that a senior engineer was required. A follow up appointment was attended the following day by the engineer and the system was left working, with parts required. The repair was completed on 29 May 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 1 June 2020. They explained that since their previous correspondence, there had been further issues at the property as follows:
1. In May 2020, there had been a fault with the fire alarm in the property. They said that they had concerns about the Scheme Manager’s response to this issue and reported that the Scheme Manager had asked a resident for help to silence the fire panel alarm after it went off.
2. They reported concerns about a resident within the property not adhering to social distancing guidelines and was not happy with Scheme Managers response to this.
3. They had contacted the cleaning contractors directly and a deep clean was subsequently carried out to the property. They questioned what action the landlord had taken in respect of the various issues they had raised about the cleaning and, reiterated their view that it would be more efficient if residents were to manage the property themselves.

On receipt, the landlord recorded a stage one complaint.

The landlord contacted the cleaning contractor on the 2 June 2020. It reported that the cleaning had not been up to standard and that residents had complained about it. It said that the cleaner’s attendance time had changed without its agreement and, asked if the day the cleaners attended could be changed.
The cleaning contractor responded and said that it would change the cleaner’s attendance time to what it had previously agreed with the landlord but, could not change the day they attended. It said regarding the standard of cleaning, that it would arrange for a supervisor would monitor this.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 12 June. It said:
1. It understood that residents were not satisfied with the day and time the cleaners attended. The day the cleaners attended could not be changed but, the cleaners should attend during office hours, around 9am.
2. Scheme Managers monitor the cleaning and report any issues identified to Estate Services, who check that cleaning is carried out to the expected standard.
3. That during the pandemic, the cleaners were asked to “concentrate on touch points, such as door handles and handrails etc”.
4. That the fire panel tests had been carried out weekly by Scheme Managers and/or its contractors.
5. Its records showed the fault with the fire panel had been reported swiftly. The fault was detected and bypassed to ensure that the system was a functioning as it should. It confirmed that had a fire occurred at the time the fault was present, the relevant services would have been alerted.
6. That the Scheme Manager would continue to be point of contact for any concerns they had about the property. But the Team Manager would be the point of contact if any new concerns arose about staff.
The resident responded to the landlord and indicated that they were not happy with its response. They noted that:
1. They believed that they arranged the deep clean with the contractor directly.
2. They changed the cleaners’ attendance time to 12pm onwards.
3. They believed that the fire panel was faulty for 13 days.
4. They and other residents wanted to manage the cleaning and other services to the property themselves.

On receipt of this, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Team contacted the resident on 17 June 2020, regarding the concerns the Scheme Manager had raised about their conduct, including the report from December 2019. The resident responded on 23 June 2020 and expressed their view of the Scheme Manager.
The Anti-Social Behaviour Team completed its investigation and decided not to take further action against the resident.
The landlord reports that the Regional Manager of Independent Living, who investigated the stage two complaint, had a meeting on 18 and 19 June 2020, to discuss its complaint response and the allegations the resident raised about the Scheme Manager.
The Team Manager sent a report to the investigating officer, which explained the details of the Scheme Manager’s complaint about the resident in December 2019. The Team Manager confirmed that following the complaint from the Scheme Manager, they contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, but took no further action.
The landlord provided its response to the stage two complaint on 26 June 2020, and said:
1. It had already responded to the complaint concerning the cleaning and the fire panel, within the stage one response.
2. It had arranged the deep clean for February 2020, but this was delayed due to the pandemic.
3. The contractor had arranged for a supervisor to attend and monitor the cleaners, and this had been in place for up to four weeks.
4. The team manager would be the resident’s point of contact for issues at the property, due to the concerns they raised about the Scheme Manager.
5. Any future concerns raised about the cleaning, ground maintenance or contractors at the property, would be passed on to Estate Services accordingly.

In addition, it noted its approach towards the abuse of its employees and advised the resident to keep this in mind when corresponding with it.

The resident responded to the landlord on 5 July 2020, with a review request. They explained that they wanted a review for the following reasons:
1. They believed that their complaints had been either ignored or not answered honestly.
2. They disputed that landlord had arranged a deep clean in February 2020, as the cleaning contractor had informed them this was not arranged following its recommendation to the landlord.
3. They reported that the contractor informed them that the property had not been deep cleaned for several years despite the service being included as part of the cleaning contract agreement.
4. They were not satisfied with the landlord’s response to their complaint concerning the response to the reported fault with the fire panel. They said the fault with the fire panel had been reported over ten times in the two weeks prior to the report made in May 2020, and that the Scheme Manager had text a resident asking for assistance with the fire panel.
5. The landlord did not respond to the complaints they had raised about the Scheme Manager’s conduct.
6. The Scheme manager complained about their conduct, and they received correspondence from the Anti-Social Behaviour team. They said that they felt their tenancy was threatened because they complained about the Scheme Manager and believed this was harassment.
7. They felt the landlord’s statement about its approach to abuse to its staff was a threat.
8. They said that the Scheme Manager had verbally attacked them, was consistently arriving late, never on site to supervise contractors and did not inform residents of contractors’ attendance.
The landlord had a meeting to discuss the resident’s complaint on 9 July 2020. The Head of Independent Living, who investigated the stage three complaint, said that they spoke with the Team Leader and got the impression that the Scheme Manager had not been “particularly diplomatic” in their dealings with the resident.
The landlord provided its final response on 22 July 2020. It confirmed that it would not refer the complaint to the review panel and explained its reasons for this as follows:
1. It said that it would not always be in a position to meet every resident’s needs across the schemes, as expectations varied across the schemes and those who live within them.
2. It did not believe it ignored, or dishonestly answered the resident’s complaints. It explained that before May 2020, the last deep clean took place in December 2019, not three years ago as the resident had said was suggested. It reiterated that it arranged for the deep clean to originally take place in February 2020, but this was delayed due to the pandemic.
3. It said that it was satisfied that the cleaning of the touch points had been completed to a good standard during the lockdown.
4. Confirmed that the fire panel was being tested every week and reiterated that the fire panel had been working while it had a fault.
5. It said that it investigated the complaint raised about the Scheme Manager and found that they acted professionally. It said it reviewed the correspondence the resident noted they had with the Scheme Manager. It advised that while it felt at times the Scheme Manager could have been “more diplomatic”, they acted with the best intentions and according to its procedures.
6. It explained that it is required to follow up on allegations it receives in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour, and this was not harassment or, because the resident made a complaint.
7. The resident’s request that the Scheme Manager be removed, was beyond the scope of the complaints review panel. It advised that if the relationship with the Scheme Manager could not improve, the contact arrangement with the team manager remained.
8. It explained that it could not transfer building management to residents because professional staff had to take responsibility for the health and safety and, support of vulnerable residents.
9. It said regarding the comments about the Scheme Manager’s punctuality, that they covered two schemes and had to respond to urgent issues. Therefore, it was not possible for them to be present at the schemes during the set times as planned.
10. It explained that Scheme Managers were not responsible for informing residents about maintenance work or co-ordinating it. It referred the resident its service standards, which detailed the Scheme Manager’s duties.
11. It believed that it had provided a full response to the complaint. It confirmed that it was not planning to move the Scheme Manager but, had appointed an alternative point of contact for the resident.

Assessment and findings

The response to the complaint about the Scheme Manager

From the information provided to this Service, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the complaints the resident submitted in January 2020 and May 2020. This is a service failure.
There is no evidence that the landlord undertook investigations into the resident’s allegations about the Scheme Manager or provided a response to these at stage one. It provided the resident with information about what they could expect from the team, and it was good that it did so, to manage the resident’s expectations. Though, doing so alone, was not satisfactory as a response to the issues raised about the Scheme Manager.
After the stage two complaint was submitted the landlord reports that a meeting was held with the Regional Manager to discuss the allegations the resident had made about the Scheme Manager. This Service has not been provided with any minutes from this meeting.
During the investigation of the stage two complaint, the landlord reviewed the report provided by the Team Manager on 24 June 2020. The report confirmed that after receiving the Scheme Manager’s complaint about the resident, the Team Manager contacted the resident to discuss the complaint but decided not to take any further action.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s relationship with the Scheme Manager had broken down and appointed a single point of contact for the resident.
The stage three complaint was investigated by the landlord’s Head of Independent Living. As part of their investigation, they contacted the Scheme Manager’s Team Leader, to discuss the resident’s allegations about the Scheme Manager’s conduct.
In the internal emails provided by the landlord, the officer investigating the complaint noted that, following their conversation with the Scheme Manager’s Team Leader, they had the impression that the Scheme Manager had not been “particularly diplomatic” in their dealings with the resident.
This Service has not seen any records concerning the Head of Independent Living’s conversation with the Team Leader. However, this Service notes with concern that the comment that the Scheme Manager was not “particularly diplomatic” is indicative of a potential service issue and, without the landlord’s information, we cannot agree that none occurred.
The information provided shows that the landlord failed to respond to this part of the complaint at stage one and two of its complaint procedure. It provided a response at the third stage but, there is no evidence to show that the landlord effectively investigated this and what its findings were based upon.

The response to the resident’s reports about cleaning.

It is apparent that the resident raised concerns about the cleaning to the landlord before they submit their first complaint however, we have no information about when they were raised. Therefore, the assessment of the landlord’s responses to the concerns about the cleaning will consider its responses from January 2020 onwards.
As mentioned, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints submitted in January and May 2020, which included their dissatisfaction about the cleaning.
Email correspondence between the landlord and its cleaning contractor confirms that the landlord was of the view that the cleaning was taking place, but had not been up to standard, from when lockdown commenced in March 2020.
After the resident complained on 1 June 2020, the landlord’s staff could not practically carry out regular internal inspections due to the pandemic. During the pandemic, only a small number of staff could be at the scheme at any time, so social distancing could be maintained. It had a procedure in place, where inspections could be requested if concerns about the cleaning had been raised. Therefore, it is reasonable that it limit its services to those deemed essential.
It contacted the cleaning contractor and set out the concerns about the cleaning. It established its expectations for the cleaning with the contractor and when it expected the service to be delivered.
The stage one complaint explained who monitored the cleaning carried out and the actions that would be taken to address any future issues identified. It also provided details of the change to the cleaning service as a result of the pandemic.
At stages two and three, the resident disputed that the landlord had arranged the deep clean and said they were of the understanding that the last deep clean had taken place several years prior. The landlord discussed this with its Estate Services Team and its cleaning contractor, who provided clarification based on the records held. It then used this information to respond to the complaint.
The landlord provided no decision on the complaints about the standard of cleaning at stages two and three. It provided a decision on the standard of cleaning in the stage three response and said that ‘touch points’ had been done to a good standard during the lockdown. However, it provided no explanation as to how it made this decision. This Service has not been provided with any evidence which supports this neither.

Concerns about fire panel testing being carried out and, the fault reported to fire panel.

The landlord received the report about the fire alarm system on 21 May 2020. Its contractor attended the same day but was not able to repair the issue. It arranged a follow up appointment for 22 May 2021, and the system was left working. The repair was completed on 29 May 2020.
The landlord’s response to the report about the fire panel was appropriate and in line with its policy, it arranged for its contractor to attend promptly, and the system was left in working order. A part was required to complete a permanent repair and the time it took for the part to arrive was beyond the landlord’s control, however, as the system was functioning properly during this time, it could not then be considered an emergency repair.
When the resident complained, they said that the fault was reported ten times in the two weeks before the report on 21 May. They also said that the panel was faulty for a total of thirteen days however, the information provided does not support this.
They also complained that the tests to the panel were not being completed however, the landlord has provided evidence that the panel has been tested weekly and relied on this evidence when it responded to the complaint.
When responding to the resident’s complaint about the fire panel, the landlord explained in detail, the actions it had taken after the fault to the fire panel was raised. It confirmed the repair required and clarified to the resident that, while the alarm was awaiting parts, it would function properly in the event of a fire. It was appropriate that it did so, given the resident’s concerns about the functionality of the system. Its response and conclusions were based on reliable information provided by its contractors, and it took reasonable steps to ensure that the alarm was repaired quickly and remained operational.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration (service failure) in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint the standard of cleaning to the block.
2. Maladministration (service failure) in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the Scheme Manager.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about the fire panel tests and the fault to the fire panel.

Reasons

There is no evidence that the landlord effectively investigated the resident’s complaint concerning the Scheme Manager. It relied on anecdotal information from the Team Leader and has not shown what its decision was based on.
As it could not attend and inspect the cleaning itself when the complaint was submitted, it was appropriate that it raised queries about the standard of cleaning to the contractor in the first instance.
However, it did not address the resident’s complaint about the standard of the cleaning at stages one and two. When it responded to the complaint at stage three, its finding was not supported by any evidence.
The finding of maladministration (service failure) regarding the complaints concerning the cleaning and the Scheme Manager, is also because the landlord did not respond to the complaints the submitted in January and May 2020. It did not address this failure to do so, at any stage of its complaint’s procedure.
The landlord dealt with the repair to the fire panel promptly and completed testing to the panel in accordance with its policy.

Orders

In recognition of the above, I order that the landlord pay the resident:
1. £50 compensation in recognition of its response to the complaint about the cleaning.
2. £50 compensation in recognition of its response to the complaint about the Scheme Manager.

The landlord is to arrange for the payment to be made to the resident within three weeks of the date of this report and provide confirmation to this Service once it has done so.