Harlow District Council (202411360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411360

Harlow District Council

14 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about the standard of cleanliness in communal areas outside his property.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. He has lived in the 1-bedroom, first-floor flat since 2004. The landlord is a local authority. It outsources aspects of its estate management, including cleaning, to a separate entity. This entity is a limited company, owned solely by the local authority. For clarity, reference to the ‘the landlord’ refers to both the local authority and its subsidiary for the purposes of this report.
The landlord is aware that the resident has mental health issues and a heart condition.
On 2 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the standard of cleanliness in the block dating back “many years”. He said cleaners were attending but were not cleaning adequately, or at all, and the block smelt of urine. He claimed he was having to clean communal areas himself while residents were collectively paying £2,000 a year for this service. He asked that the landlord waive the charge and allow him to clean the block. He noted he and his neighbours had complained about this many times over the years.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 September 2023 and stated the following:
1. The cleaning supervisor had inspected the estate on 24 August 2023 and found the standard of cleaning to be “acceptable and good”.
2. Cleaners were attending and cleaning all areas according to a “tick sheet” of tasks.
3. It had found no evidence cleaners were missing urine stains.
4. Cleaners reported that the front entrance door was sometimes propped open which allowed debris to blow in. There was also a small table outside the resident’s property which did not allow easy access for cleaning and was a fire hazard.
5. It would continue random inspections of the block/estate.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint the same day. He felt it was dishonest of it to say it was cleaning the block.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 September 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and stated:
1. It had met with the cleaning team who confirmed they never missed cleaning the block and were upset by the allegations.
2. The cleaning team had attended on 27 September 2023 to remove a long-standing stain on the wall. They were unable to remove this with cleaning products and had referred the issue to the housing team.
3. The resident should direct any discrepancies about his service charge to the home ownership team.
4. It had received no recent complaints from residents of his block, or neighbouring blocks.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord logged a further stage 1 complaint from the resident who remained unhappy with the level of cleaning in the block. He reiterated his request for a deduction in his service charge.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 May 2024. It said it undertook regular inspections and had continued to do so following his complaint. It maintained it cleaned to an acceptable standard and said he would have to contact another team in the council to discuss his service charge.
The resident escalated the complaint on 31 May 2024 and the landlord responded on 28 June 2024. It said it had inspected and reviewed the cleaning team’s vehicle tracker throughout May and June 2024, which confirmed they had attended daily. It said it was satisfied with the level of cleaning, and this was its final position on the matter.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his concerns and referred his complaint to this Service. He would like it to waive the service charge and allow him to clean the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint and correspondence with the landlord, the resident expressed concern about the level of cleaning in the block dating back many years. This included his claim the landlord had not cleaned at all during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to the passage of time since the pandemic, we cannot consider issues with the level of cleaning during this period. While we appreciate the resident had long-standing concerns, there is no evidence he raised these as a formal complaint with the landlord in the 12 months prior to 2 August 2023 when he complained. This investigation is therefore focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in response to, and following, his formal complaint.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that he considered the service charge to be unreasonable. While we can consider a complaint about the provision of services that are charged to residents, we cannot make a binding decision on the reasonableness of the service charge, nor order a landlord to remove, reduce, or refund it. These are matters for a court or tribunal to decide on. Should he wish, the resident can seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) or refer this aspect of his complaint to the First Tier Tribunal for consideration.

Handling of concerns about communal cleaning

The lease confirms that the leaseholder is entitled to caretaking and cleaning services “in the lobbies, passageways, stairs, lifts, and any other common parts (whether internal or external) of the property”. It confirms the landlord is to maintain such services at a “reasonable level”. The resident is responsible for payment of a service charge to fund this.
Cleaners sign a ‘tick sheet’ to confirm which cleaning tasks they have completed in internal areas of the block. The tick sheet specifies the frequency of cleaning tasks as follows:
1. Sweeping – daily (Monday to Friday).
2. Mopping – every other day (Monday to Friday).
3. Cobwebs – once weekly.
4. Cleaning of marked walls – once monthly.
5. Banisters and rails – once fortnightly.
6. Wiping of windowsills and doors – once fortnightly.
7. Entrance door glass – once weekly.
8. Interior glass – once monthly.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 August 2023. There is no evidence it replied or acted on his concerns, and he emailed it again on 15 and 21 August 2023. It was unreasonable that he had to chase it for a response. The resident was clearly frustrated about the standard of cleaning which was compounded by the landlord’s poor communication and failure to act promptly.
The landlord’s cleaning supervisor inspected the building and neighbouring blocks on 24 August 2023. This was an appropriate and proportionate response to the resident’s concerns. They provided specific detail about the block smelling nice, the pathway being free from debris, and noted there was no evidence of urine. However, the supervisor’s report that the block was “acceptable and good with all areas clean” lacked any specific detail. It would have been good practice for the landlord to conduct inspections based on a checklist, to ensure and evidence that it was assessing all areas. It could also have provided clarification for the meaning of its categories such as ‘good’ and ‘acceptable’, as cleaning standards can be subjective. This would provide assurance to residents and help manage expectations about service delivery.
The supervisor provided assurance it regularly monitored the block through both routine and random inspections. This was an appropriate measure, but it has provided no detail of the schedule or frequency with which it inspected/inspects. It would have been good practice for the landlord to share details of its routine inspections and invite residents to these. The resident felt mistrustful of the landlord’s handling of his concerns which it could have alleviated by being more transparent and involving him in the process.
In its initial stage 1 response the landlord confirmed its cleaners filled in tick sheets and had completed all areas and tasks according to these. The landlord has provided us with completed tick sheets from 21 August 2023 to 13 October 2023. We have been unable to consider the level of cleaning during the period that gave rise to the resident’s complaint as it provided no tick sheets prior to this date. The landlord should keep and provide full records to allow us to assess the action it takes or does not take.
The tick sheets suggest cleaners attended daily from Monday to Friday during this period. In some instances, cleaners completed tasks more frequently than required. However, in other areas, routine tasks were not complete. Most notably, cleaners were required to sweep the floors daily, but they did so less than 50% of the time (18 days out of 39). While the landlord did not complete all tasks across all areas during this time, this does not evidence the cleaning was sub-standard, but it should regularly review these for quality assurance.
In the stage 1 response, the supervisor noted the cleaning team had not found evidence of urine as reported by the resident. The tick sheet was annotated by cleaning staff confirming that they had thoroughly mopped the floors. The resident noted he had already cleaned the urine, but it was reasonable for the landlord to flag the resident’s concerns with cleaning staff. The supervisor also appropriately explored whether there were issues with antisocial behaviour in the block and cleaning staff confirmed there were not.
In response to the resident’s escalation request and further reports about sub-standard cleaning, the landlord inspected the block again on 20 September 2023. The landlord’s records suggest it was the same supervisor who attended, and they were satisfied with the level of cleaning. They identified a long-standing wall stain in the block and planned to remove this. The landlord took appropriate action by inspecting the block and arranging for follow-on works.
However, given that the resident remained dissatisfied with its service, and the supervisor had already inspected, it may have been reasonable for another member of the landlord to attend. For example, the resident’s housing officer or a staff member from another team/department. While we are not questioning the supervisor’s integrity, the resident had already disputed their findings, and this would have demonstrated greater impartiality.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response of September 2023, the resident continued to report concerns about cleanliness in the block. On 4 October 2023 he emailed the landlord and reported he had CCTV footage of cleaners entering the block for only 20 seconds. He questioned how they could clean the 3-floor building in this time. It is not clear whether he shared the footage with the landlord at this time, but there is no evidence the landlord responded. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s email and outlined any follow-up actions it would take.
In May 2025 the landlord logged another complaint from the resident who said cleaners had not attended for several weeks. He also said they had subsequently attended, and he had CCTV footage showing they were only in the building for 45 seconds. His correspondence suggests he provided the landlord with a copy of the footage and asked for its feedback.
In its complaint responses, the landlord refuted his claim cleaners had not attended. It said it had reviewed attendance sheets and data from the vehicle which evidenced they had. We have not had access to this data so cannot comment further, but these were appropriate records for the landlord to review. It also confirmed it had continued to inspect the block, and its business performance manager had attended. Again, we have not had access to details of any inspections, but it was appropriate for it to send a senior and alternative member of staff to review conditions. However, it should have responded directly to his footage or claims cleaners had only attended for 45 seconds, even if it refuted this.
The landlord reported that it had not received complaints from other residents, which the resident said was inaccurate. We can only consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and cannot determine whether other neighbours were dissatisfied with the level of service. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to solicit feedback from the neighbourhood, to understand any concerns and demonstrate it was taking the resident’s reports seriously.
In July 2024 the landlord’s records show it informed the resident its business performance manager was inspecting the block and asked if they could meet with him in person. We are not aware of the outcome of this inspection/meeting. However, by continuing to inspect and engaging the resident in the process, the landlord took positive action.
In its complaint responses, the landlord referred the resident to an alternative team to query his service charges. The resident had asked that it deduct the cleaning charge as part of his complaint. The landlord should have provided its position on this within its response, but given it directed him appropriately, we have not considered this a failing.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of cleaning. The landlord took some reasonable steps to assess the level of cleaning following concerns raised by the resident. It inspected the block and reviewed records to assess attendance by cleaners, and cleaning standards.
However, it could have been more responsive on occasion. This includes following his initial reports in August 2023, and in response to his claims that he had footage of cleaners attending for short periods. Shortcomings in the landlord’s communication caused the resident unnecessary frustration.
The landlord could also have done more to demonstrate accountability, transparency, and collaboration in its approach. It should have invited the resident on its inspections at an earlier opportunity and engaged the wider resident community to understand any concerns. It should also have been clearer with the resident and the community about its process for monitoring standards. The shortcomings in its process affected his confidence in it and he lacked faith it was taking his concerns seriously.
We recommend that it implement an estate management policy or procedure outlining clear standards and quality assurance measures. The landlord should also pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its failures. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which states that payments in this region are appropriate where the landlord’s actions have resulted in time and effort on the resident’s part and a loss of confidence.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines its standards and timeframes for complaint handling. According to the policy in effect at the time of the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord responded to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It responded to complaints at stage 2 within 15 working days. As of April 2024, it updated its policy and now responds within 20 working days at the second stage of its process. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 August 2023 and asked that it escalate his complaint to stage 2. We understand the resident had previously complained to the landlord about the standard of cleaning and it had responded through its internal complaints process. On this occasion, there is no evidence the resident had complained to the landlord in the 12-months prior to August 2023. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to log the resident’s correspondence as a new stage 1 complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 6 September 2023. At 24 working days, this exceeded the timeframe specified in its policy. While the resident’s request that it escalate his complaint may have caused it some confusion, there is no evidence the landlord made any enquiries or sought clarity from the resident. The resident had to chase the landlord a further 2 times in August 2023 before it acknowledged his concerns and logged the complaint. Its delay was therefore unreasonable. It should have acknowledged this in its complaint response and apologised for any inconvenience.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 September 2023 and the landlord responded on 28 September 2023, after 16 working days. This was just over the 15-day timeframe according to the landlord’s policy and was within the 20-day timeframe outlined in the Code. It is unlikely this caused the resident significant detriment and, as such, this is considered a shortcoming rather than a failure of the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in May 2023 within the timeframes outlined in its policy.
Because the landlord delayed in its initial response of September 2023 and failed to acknowledge and apologise for this, we have found service failure. In line with our remedies guidance, it should compensate the resident £30 for the inconvenience it caused him in having to chase it for a response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard of cleanliness in communal areas outside his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £130 compensation. This is comprised of:
1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of his reports about the standard of cleanliness in communal areas.
2. £30 for delays in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should implement an estate management policy and procedures. As part of this it should:
1. Consider how it defines ‘good’, ‘adequate’, or ‘inadequate’ standards.
2. Specify a frequency for routine inspections.
3. Consider implementing an inspection checklist.
4. Involve residents in its quality assurance process, including inspections.