Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (202315518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315518

Southwark Council

28 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about communal cleaning and grounds maintenance of the block, including a subsequent mice infestation.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord owns the freehold.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 10 June 2022. He said it was not completing cleaning and grounds maintenance to the block as required under his service charge.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 21 July 2022, the landlord provided responses about its cleaning and grounds maintenance teams actions. It said its teams had been in the area, any outstanding works would be completed, and it would monitor the area.
  4. Dissatisfied with the response the resident escalated his complaint the same day. He asked for specific responses regarding grass cutting, bin storage cleaning and communal cleaning within the block. He also noted he had been cleaning a communal area himself as there was an issue with mice but was still paying his service charge.
  5. Following several months of communication on the matter the resident reiterated the complaint issues again to the landlord on 16 May 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 30 May 2023. It advised him on its cleaning schedule, explained why the bins system could not be changed and stated that the pest infestation had been dealt with. There was no compensation offered.
  6. In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said there is still an issue with cleaners not attending to the block, and the infestation of mice was still occurring. He wants the landlord to keep to the cleaning and maintenance schedule, resolve the bin shed issue and pay compensation for the past 3 years of no services being received despite him paying his full-service charge.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In contact with this Service, the resident requested that the landlord reduce the service charge due to poor management. Determining the reasonableness of, and liability for, service charges requires a binding decision from a court or other tribunal service such as the First Tier Tribunal Service. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord managed the resident’s complaint in line with policy and procedure, and whether he was treated fairly, given all the circumstances of the case.

Grounds maintenance, cleaning, and pest reports

  1. The landlords guide for leaseholders and freeholders confirms the resident pays a service charge to the landlord. Those charges include services for cleaning and upkeep of communal areas and grounds maintenance. It states the resident can expect it to repair and maintain the exterior and common areas of the building. The guide also confirms the communal garden, and grassed areas are the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. Section 21 of the guide states that its officers conduct estate inspections every month. It should display dates and times of inspections on the estate notice board. Its officers will conduct estate inspections to monitor the communal areas are cleaned and the horticultural teams are maintaining any communal garden areas. Its officers will make a note of any repairs to the internal and external communal areas and raise required repairs. It will check to ensure there are no health and safety or fire safety issues.
  3. The residents lease confirms that the landlord provides services of grounds maintenance and care and upkeep of the estate. The lease is silent on the frequency of the services provided.
  4. In his complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2022, the resident said there had been no maintenance to his block for over 2 years. This included cutting of the communal grass. He wanted a refund on his service charges during that period. He said he had been paying approximately £500 a year for block maintenance and upkeep but none of the services outlined had been provided to his block.
  5. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 21 July 2022 that it had discussed the matter with the cleaning supervisor. They had confirmed that the cleaning and the grounds maintenance team had been in the area. They advised there was some litter which would be picked up proactively by the cleaning team. It would conduct any outstanding works needed on the grounds within the next week. The cleaning supervisor would monitor the area every other day to ensure the area was being kept to contractual standards.
  6. In his response to the landlord on the same day, the resident said it had not addressed the points raised in his complaint. He asked for it to specifically address the following issues:
    1. Cutting of the communal grass – as the residents in his block had collectively purchased the tools necessary and cut the communal grass themselves due to no attendance for over 2 years.
    2. It not cleaning the communal bin sheds. He provided a photograph of empty inspection stickers.
    3. It not sweeping and mopping the block.
  7. In escalating the complaint, the resident said the landlord had not provided the services since the first COVID-19 lockdown. He said he had cleaned the communal areas himself as there was an issue with mice that risked his property getting an infestation. But he had still been paying for those services in his service charge. He wanted the services resumed and compensation provided for the period of no services.
  8. The landlord provided a copy of its cleaning schedule to the Ombudsman. The schedule states it will conduct daily cleaning including sweeping of external and internal areas, litter picking and sweeping of refuse chambers. It did not provide a schedule for grounds maintenance works.
  9. The landlord provided its grounds maintenance records for 2022. These show it completed grounds maintenance at the estate once per month. There were however only 2 records of grass cutting taking place on 5 May 2022 and 13 June 2022. The records were not clear on the extent of the works that took place.
  10. The resident chased the landlord again on 2 August 2022 for an update regarding the services to his block. Although it responded on the same day and told him it would provide a response, there is no evidence it did so. The landlord requested for the grass to be cut on 4 August 2022. It noted the request was due to the resident’s complaint. Following that request, its records show that between August and December 2022 it attended the block to carry out grounds maintenance works to shrubs and weeds but there was no evidence of further grass cutting taking place.
  11. The landlord provided records relating to the cleaning of the communal areas to the Ombudsman. These show that it completed inspections once a month from December 2021 to May 2022, missing out February 2022. The inspections continued monthly throughout the period covered in this investigation. This shows it completed the inspections monthly as required. The inspection reports also show the actions taken when it identified issues requiring further action. This included referrals for further works to take place such as additional litter picking or cleaning.
  12. However, the landlord’s records lack detail regarding the outcome of those referrals. This included in August 2022 when it noted the bin area behind the block needed sweeping out and in November and December 2022 for its cleaner to clean the communal hallway and staircase of the block.
  13. There was also no evidence provided by the landlord that it was displaying the dates and times of inspections on the estate notice board as it stated it would do in its leaseholders’ guide.
  14. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence of daily cleaning taking place. This has meant the Ombudsman is unable to establish that it was completing the communal cleaning as required under its cleaning schedule.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 January 2023. He said the issues since summer 2022 were outstanding. He said he was following up on his formal complaint and asked for it to investigate the following issues:
    1. Mice infestation in the bin area due to it not being cleaned adequately. He noted that nobody swept or mopped the block. He said he was continuing to maintain it and paid for the service in his service charge.
    2. No one was cutting the communal grass since the COVID-19 lockdown. It did cut other parts of the estate, and he did not know why it had stopped cutting the grass in his area.
  16. In responding to the resident on 17 January 2023, the landlord said it had contacted the cleaner regarding his complaint. The cleaner assured it the bin area would be cleaned. It had contacted a cleaning supervisor to ensure in the absence of the cleaner that cover would be available. Regarding the grass cutting, it said the weather had not been good and had impacted ground maintenance works. It would inspect the communal garden once the weather improved. It asked the resident to contact the pest control team to book a visit.
  17. The landlord’s response did not clarify with the resident if the regular cleaning routine was taking place as required under its cleaning schedule or if not why. It also failed to adequately respond to his request regarding grass cutting. Although it provided a response noting the poor weather conditions, it did not answer his question about only part of the estate being cut.
  18. The resident responded to the landlord the same day. He pointed out that its website specified the cleaning service it provided as part of its service charge and when those should take place. This included sweeping and mopping internal areas twice weekly, cleaning internal fixture and fittings monthly and power washing refuse rooms/bin chambers monthly.
  19. The resident said the landlord was not providing those services. He asked again for it to confirm the cleaning routine. He also enquired when the grass would be cut and if plastic bins could be provided to solve the issue with mice.
  20. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would ask a cleaning supervisor to respond to him regarding its cleaning specification. It also said a grounds maintenance supervisor would visit the estate the next day and provide an update to it. It said that any changes to the bins would have to be communicated to all residents. Its pest control team could put traps in the bin areas to prevent mice getting into the bin rooms.
  21. The landlord’s records noted on 18 January 2023 its operative visited the block. They observed some litter, and the grass would be cut the next day to tidy it. They said it was within contract length between cuts.
  22. Following on from that visit, the landlord’s records show pest inspections took place on 19 January, 2 February, 14 February, 14 April, and 28 April 2023. The inspection records show during the visit on 28 April 2023 food debris, food grease and litter was present. The landlord has not evidenced it considered those reports given the nature of the resident’s complaint regarding cleaning and request for bins at that time. There is no evidence of it taking any actions to increase cleaning in the area and the issue with the mice was continuing.
  23. The landlord’s grounds maintenance records show visits took place on 20 January, 3 February, 17 February, 17 March and 14 April 2023. However, grass cutting only occurred on 3 February 2023 with the other visits consisting of works to shrubs, weeding and leaves. Its records used a tick box form that indicated if works took place. The records provide no clarity on the actual works that took place during those visits or if no works took place why not. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude the extent of the grounds maintenance or any reasons it failed to complete any works. In the absence of such evidence, it has not demonstrated it was conducting the grounds maintenance as required.
  24. The resident contacted the landlord about his complaint again on 3 May 2023. He said he was following up his complaint because there was no resolution about the absence of block and garden maintenance for his property. He repeated the costs he was paying in service charges and not getting any service despite repeated complaints. He acknowledged it swept the block approximately every fortnight but said that was not regular and usually after he complained. He said the problem with mice was due to the lack of cleaning and maintenance, which pest control had been unable to resolve.
  25. The landlord’s records show further visits were made by the grounds maintenance team on 11 May 2023 for grass cutting. As with previous visits the level of detail provided by it is not enough to show if works took place or the works completed.
  26. The resident provided an email to the landlord on 16 May 2023 with details of the complaint. He noted it was in 2 parts. Firstly, he repeated the issues of cleaning and grounds maintenance including the bins and mice issue. Secondly, he wanted compensation for the service charge he was paying without receiving the services and needing to undertake the works himself.
  27. The landlord’s internal communications on 17 May 2023 show the pest control team had advised it to install bins in chambers at the back of the block. This was due to the treatment applied not being effective in eliminating the infestation. The current method for the estate was for it to collect bagged waste from each property that was moved to a collection point. It did not think bins would fit in the chambers as they had been designed with the intention of holding a bag. If it moved to individual bins for residents, it would require a change to the whole service. The estate would need to get enough communal bins to contain waste between collections with bins stores placed throughout the estate for accessibility for all residents.
  28. On 23 May 2023, an inspection took place at the estate. It found that with the current location of the block and the bin chambers, it was not viable to install the type of bins suggested by the resident in the chambers room due to difficulties of emptying the bins to the collection lorry. It then considered blocking off the chambers and asking residents to use bins in other locations on the estate to dispose of their rubbish.
  29. The landlord has demonstrated seeking an alternative solution to the use of bins at the estate. It has not however evidenced what final decision it made or that any outcome was communicated to the resident prior to it issuing the stage 2 response.
  30. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 30 May 2023, it said:
    1. The communal gardens grass cutting was a 4-weekly programme. However, due to rain weather the team were unable to use their equipment which affected their scheduled programme and caused delays. It cut the communal area on 10 May 2023, and the cycle would resume on a regular basis providing good weather. The collection of grass was not in the housing contract. It would collect grass if there was over 20% left.
    2. Its officer confirmed they had been inspecting the block during estate visits alongside the Estate Cleaner. Recent visits in May 2023 confirmed the block was cleaned.
    3. It was not possible to install bins due to the difficulties of emptying the bins to the collection lorry.
    4. Pest Control had confirmed that they had attended on 12 May 2023 to inspect the bin cupboards as well as the electrical intake cupboards.
    5. He had requested to see copies of the cleaning schedule and it attached a copy. It had requested his block was monitored and maintained to the standard required.
    6. Given the findings in its response, it was partly upholding the complaint. It found there was a delay in services being provided by it and it apologised for any inconveniences caused. It discussed his concerns in cleaning meetings and took actions to rectify the issues. Monitoring was ongoing to ensure a good level of cleaning.
  31. Despite the landlord partially upholding the complaint and providing the resident with an apology there was no further offer of redress made to him. Given the length of time, he had been reporting the issues, and he had stated he had to undertake some of the cleaning and ground maintenance himself, the landlord should have considered if redress for time and trouble was appropriate.
  32. Overall, the landlord has not evidenced it was conducting the cleaning of the estate as required in the schedule it had provided to the Ombudsman. Although it has shown that monthly estate inspections took place it is not clear that the daily or weekly cleaning was taking place. While it was conducting the grounds maintenance on a regular basis there is no evidence of the extent of works it completed, or reasons when work such as the grass cutting did not take place. It has also failed to evidence it took appropriate timely action in response to the reports of mice infestation resulting in the situation continuing. This is maladministration by the landlord.

Associated complaint

  1. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2022. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. It failed to do so. He then sent the same complaint again to it on 13 June and 27 June 2022.
  2. On 30 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. Given the initial complaint was made on 10 June 2022, the acknowledgement was outside the 3 working day timescale required under its complaint policy.
  3. The landlord also told the resident it received the complaint on 29 June 2022 and would reply by 21 June 2022. The date of receipt it provided to the resident was incorrect based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 21 July 2022 was 30 working days after the complaint was made and beyond its complaint policy timescale of 15 working days. It is acknowledged it provided the response within the period given to the resident. However, as previously stated it failed to identify the complaint had been made at an earlier date.
  5. The stage 1 response failed to state the landlord was responding to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. The response did not inform the resident if it had upheld his complaint.
  6. In addition, it stated the landlord requested for confirmation that it had adequately captured the nature of his concerns. In his escalation request, the resident specifically stated it had not actually considered the points of his complaint. From the evidence provided there is no evidence of it corresponding with him prior to the stage 1 response being issued. The Ombudsman cannot therefore conclude that it discussed the complaint with him before it issued its response.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint the same day, but the landlord has not evidenced it considered this response as an escalation of his complaint. It also failed to respond when the resident stated he was chasing up his complaint on 2 August 2022 and 10 January 2023. This was a failure by it to recognise he was not satisfied with the response to his complaint. It was not until his correspondence on 3 May 2023 that it recognised his efforts to have his complaint escalated. This was almost 10 months after he had initially requested to escalate his complaint.
  8. The stage 2 response was issued on 30 May 2023. This was within the 25 working day timescales of its complaint policy based on it acknowledging the complaint on 3 May 2023. However, the stage 2 response was issued significantly beyond its policy timescales when considering the residents initial request to escalate the complaint.
  9. Although the stage 2 response did partly uphold the complaint, the landlord failed to offer any form of redress to the resident for the failures it had identified. This included the failures in its complaint handling and the ongoing reports he had made regarding the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance.
  10. In conclusion, for the landlord’s failures in registering and escalating the complaint, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning and grounds maintenance of the block, including a subsequent mice infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports about the lack of cleaning and grounds maintenance of the building including a subsequent mice infestation.
    3. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its cleaning and grounds maintenance record keeping and consider if they provide suitable information regarding the scope of works taking place.