Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202200983)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200983

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

19 August 2025

Updated 8 October 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 concerns about:
   1. The standard of cleaning and condition of the communal areas of her estate.
   2. Vermin in the communal area.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
4. The resident lives alone and the landlord is aware of the resident’s health concerns which includes a learning disability. Her son acts as his mother’s representative. For ease of reference in this report we will refer to both the resident and her son as ‘the resident.’
5. On 7 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about missed services. They reported unclean communal areas, graffiti, blocked refuse, safety hazards, and a recent injury caused by items in the communal area. The resident also requested a refund of 2 months’ service charge.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 26 September 2022, citing delays, lack of detail in the landlord’s stage 1 response and unresolved estate service issues. They raised concerns about cleanliness, safety, and value for money. The resident declined a visit from the landlord and requested reimbursement of the service charge and the landlord’s cleaning record for communal areas of the building.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 September 2022. It did not uphold the complaint and:
   1. Apologised for the issues raised.
   2. Asserted that caretakers visited the site weekly and performance had been regularly monitored.
   3. Stated that cleaning services, including sweeping, graffiti removal, and internal cleaning, were being carried out as scheduled.
   4. Said it found no evidence of severe litter or rotting waste in recent inspections.
   5. Said vermin, including mice, rats, and foxes, may be attracted to the block or bin area if food waste is not disposed of correctly, and it was not possible to control where individuals chose to leave such waste.
   6. Acknowledged communal clutter issues and confirmed an estate manager would issue a removal notice with a deadline in view of this.
   7. Denied a refund of service charges, stating services were delivered, though the resident was dissatisfied with the standard.
   8. Offered to arrange a site visit with the caretaking supervisor to address specific concerns raised.
8. The resident reiterated their dissatisfaction on 17 November 2022. They described the stage 1 response as unprofessional, inaccurate, and lacking evidence, and raised concerns about ongoing cleaning failures, management performance, health and safety hazards, and staff conduct.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 December 2023 in which it:
   1. Apologised for the delay in responding and for not providing a written response to the complaint in October 2023.
   2. Offered £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture for the service failure.
   3. Admitted that the stage 1 investigation was insufficient and lacked objective evidence.
   4. Outlined steps to improve service delivery and transparency, including drafting new estate service standards to be implemented in 2024, appointing estate team leaders for regular quality checks with photographic evidence, publicising estate inspections open to residents, and setting up a resident-led quality checking panel inviting resident involvement.
   5. Acknowledged disruption from ongoing building works, expected to conclude in Spring 2024.
10. On 29 February 2024, the resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman stating that the landlord had failed to resolve any of the issues raised or provided the promised compensation for both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint handling failures. The resident said the landlord had not provided evidence for cleaning services over the past 10 years, as it was withholding cleaning reports and photos for the last 6 years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. Throughout their communications with the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the level and reasonableness of the communal cleaning payable through the service charge.
12. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As the resident pays a fixed service charge, she may be able to make a claim via the courts in relation to this element of her complaint. The resident can seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint further.
13. Before making this complaint, the resident had previously raised a similar issue with the landlord, and the landlord last responded to this in 2022. The Ombudsman also knows the resident still has concerns about the standard of communal cleaning. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we can only look at complaints made to us within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This investigation will therefore focus on events leading up to the resident’s most recent complaint in September 2022. These events went through the landlord’s complaint process, which ended in December 2023. We will also consider whether the landlord carried out the actions it promised in its final response.
14. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 September 2022 that they sustained a foot injury because of items left in the communal area. The resident also said the situation had affected their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman acknowledges what the resident has said about their injury and their physical and mental health. However, it is outside our remit to consider the effect of any action or inaction by the landlord on the resident’s health, including liability for injuries. As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this concern, they may wish to seek independent legal advice. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an injury in terms of any potential cleaning issues, and we have also considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition and cleanliness of the communal areas

15. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas in a neat and tidy condition.
16. The landlord’s estate standards guide says the landlords in house caretaking team will provide weekly cleaning of communal internal areas and monthly external cleaning. The landlord stated that inspections and estate walkabouts were carried out to monitor compliance. The caretaking and cleaning teams were also expected to complete monthly health and safety inspections, except for daily inspections in tower blocks.
17. In a complaint dated 7 September 2022, the resident reported poor maintenance in the communal areas including unclean areas, graffiti, blocked refuse, safety hazards.
18. The resident asked the landlord to provide:
    1. Records of its investigation into her concerns.
    2. Cleaning and ground keeping logs.
    3. Copies of inspection reports or contractor feedback.
19. We requested cleaning records for the period of the complaint. The landlord provided only 2 inspection reports, dated 23 May 2023 and 29 November 2023.
20. Proper record keeping is a core element of effective housing management. When records are missing or incomplete, it is not possible for us to verify the landlord’s claims. In this case, the absence of documentation has made it difficult to determine whether the landlord acted fairly or followed its policies. Because of the missing evidence, it is unclear how the landlord assured itself that weekly cleaning was being carried out and we cannot confirm that the cleaning was carried out for the period where there are no records.
21. Of the 2 cleaning reports provided, the 23 May 2023 inspection identified some positive findings. However, it noted concerns, including a lack of signage regarding pram and bicycle storage in communal areas. The 29 November 2023 report also recorded a rat problem and noted that few communal lights were not working. It recorded that the inspection lasted only one minute, which raised doubts about its thoroughness.
22. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning was unreasonable. The landlord did not show it carried out a meaningful investigation into the quality of the cleaning. Cleaning and inspection records were limited and incomplete. As a result, the landlord has not demonstrated compliance with tenancy duties.
23. On 3 January 2024, the landlord conducted an unannounced estate visit. The visit confirmed that the conditions were poor. The landlord promised the resident a plan of action and said it would make improvements by the end of February 2024. This was a reasonable commitment. However, on 29 February 2024, the resident reported continued cleaning concerns indicating that the landlord did not deliver the promised improvements. The landlord did not act reasonably as it failed to follow through on its commitment and did not ensure the works were completed on time. It should have monitored the situation more closely, carried out a follow-up inspection, and taken timely action to make sure the estate met an acceptable standard of cleanliness.
24. The resident asked for a refund of service charges due to poor cleaning. Normally, the landlord would not be obliged to issue a refund if it carried out communal cleaning, even if there are concerns about the quality, since the landlord is entitled to charge for services it provides. The landlord disputed the claim of poor cleaning. However, the landlord did not provide evidence that cleaning took place during the 2 months before the complaint was logged on 7 September 2022. Therefore, it should refund the charge for cleaning which the resident paid for this period.
25. For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning and condition of the communal areas of her estate. The landlord should pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance recommends awards of £100 to £600 where a landlord’s failure caused distress or inconvenience to the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.

The landlords handling of the resident’s report of vermin in the communal area

26. The landlord has not provided a copy of its policy for pest control in communal areas. The tenancy agreement does not specifically refer to pest control. However, it states that the landlord must maintain communal areas to a reasonable standard.
27. In line with industry best practice, landlords are responsible for resolving pest issues affecting communal areas and residents are responsible for pest control in their own individual properties. In response to reports of pests in communal areas, the landlord should carry out pest control to eradicate the pests and look at whether any proofing works are needed to block holes etc allowing access for pests into the building.
28. On 7 September 2022, the resident reported vermin in the communal areas. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response suggested the issue could be because of improper food waste disposal and said it could not control where individuals leave waste. However, it did not provide any evidence to show the landlord inspected the area or investigated the report, and there are no records explaining how it reached its conclusion. Without inspection records or findings, the Service is unable to conclude that the landlord’s conclusion was reasonable.  The landlord should have carried out an inspection, documented the outcome, and communicated it to the resident.
29. The landlord’s inspection report dated 29 November 2023 recorded a rat problem. However, the landlord did not provide any further details or evidence showing how it resolved the issue. The landlord should have provided records showing the steps it took after the inspection. It should have completed proofing and baiting and continued to monitor the situation until the vermin were eradicated.
30. In emails dated 29 January 2024, 4 February 2024, and 18 February 2024, the resident reported ongoing issues with rubbish disposal. She said this had led to rats running around the estate, with droppings and faeces in the communal areas. She also said she could not safely access her shed due to mice and rats in the shed area. The landlord did not provide evidence that it inspected the area or arranged pest control. The landlord should have acted promptly to inspect the area and arrange pest control.
31. For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of vermin in communal areas. No inspection records or evidence of action were provided. The landlord did not show that it took reasonable steps to address the problem.
32. As the resident has reported that the rat issue is ongoing, the landlord should immediately inspect the affected areas, arrange professional pest control treatment, implement proofing works where necessary, and keep the resident updated in writing until the problem is resolved.
33. Given the extent of the landlord’s failure to address the reported vermin problem and the ongoing nature of the issue, it should pay the resident a payment of £300. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. In this case, while there may be no permanent impact if the rats are now removed, the resident has continued to experience distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s inaction and the lack of confirmation that the problem has been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

34. The landlord’s complaint policy follows the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaints handling and all landlords which are members of our Scheme are required to follow the Code. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 2-stage process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages and respond within 10 more working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord can extend the response period with the resident, but stage 1 cannot exceed 10 working days, and stage 2 cannot exceed 20 working days without a good reason.
35. The resident submitted their complaint on 7 September 2022, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
36. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not fully address the resident’s report of a foot injury caused by items in the communal area. On 11 January 2024, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had sent the matter to its liability insurer. The landlord can use insurance to handle these claims to control costs and does not have to consider claims outside the insurance process. Because the insurer is separate from the landlord and not a social landlord, we cannot investigate the insurance claim or its outcome.
37. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 complaint response until 22 December 2023, more than a year after the first escalation request on 26 September 2022. During that time, it did not provide any updates or explanations. This delay was unacceptable. It did not comply with the landlord’s own complaint policy and the Code. It meant the resident had to wait for a very long time to progress her complaint to our service and may have given her the impression that the landlord was not listening to her or taking her concerns seriously.
38. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the stage 1 review lacked objective evidence. It was good that the landlord recognised this, but it did not explain the flawed parts or the actions it took to fix the issues.
39. The landlord apologised for its failings for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation. However, given the extent of the delay and that it failed to provide clear responses, we are not satisfied that the £100 was enough to provide the resident with reasonable redress in this case. Therefore, a payment of £300 is more appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. This payment takes into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £100 which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid to the resident.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. The standard of cleaning and condition of the communal areas of her estate.
    2. Vermin in the communal area.
    3. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to issue a formal apology. This should address the failings identified in the areas of communal cleaning services, poor complaint handling, and inadequate record keeping.
    2. Pay compensation to the resident of £800. The compensation is broken down as follows:
       1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the communal cleaning.
       2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to address the pest control aspect of the resident’s complaint.
       3. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s previous offer of £100 can be deducted from this total, if already paid
    3. Inspect the communal areas for vermin concerns raised by the resident. If vermin are found, develop and provide a detailed action plan to eradicate them. Share all inspection reports and the action plan with the resident to ensure transparency and accountability.
    4. Supply the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the communal area cleaning standards and a clear plan outlining how the landlord will resolve ongoing issues with cleaning.
42. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must reimburse the resident for the service charges paid for communal cleaning for the 2 months prior to 7 September 2022.

Recommendations

43. We recommend that the landlord reviews its record keeping in relation to the communal cleaning in the estate and block areas at the resident’s scheme. The landlord should consider what actions it needs to take to ensure that, going forward, it maintains clear and comprehensive records and that these are readily available to residents and the Ombudsman if requested.
44. The landlord should also review the service charge records for other residents on the estate covering the same period. The landlord should consider reimbursing those residents as well. It should consider refunding the service charge for all residents for the communal cleaning for the 2 months prior to September 2022 when there is no evidence that communal cleaning was taking place.