Birmingham City Council (202334810)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block. The resident’s rent payment includes a cost for communal cleaning to the block, which the landlord is scheduled to complete weekly. On 1 May 2023 the resident reported the cleaner had used dirty water to mop the floors on 28 April 2023. On 17 November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the caretaker did not clean that week.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning.

6. The landlord did not take prompt action to address the issue following the resident’s report on 1 May 2023. It later offered an appropriate resolution for the missed weekly clean, but it failed to provide evidence to support its subsequent inspection findings. The failure to provide evidence undermined transparency and confidence in its ability to monitor the cleaning standards.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord provided its complaint responses within the timeframes expected in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

8. The resident raised concerns about the standard of cleaning both before her complaint in May 2023 and after the complaint concluded the landlord’s complaints process in November 2023. However, we can only investigate matters the resident raised and have been considered by the landlord as part of that process. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint dated 1 May 2023 through to its final response in November 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the standard of the communal cleaning.

9. Following the resident’s report on 1 May 2023 the landlord said it spoke to the caretaker and instructed him to use clean water. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide instruction as to the basic expectations for cleaning to its staff, however, there is no evidence the landlord to arranged for someone to return and resolve the issue at the time.
10. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident reported to it on 17 November 2023, cleaning had not taken place that week (commencing 13 November 2023). In her complaint, she also said specific staff members had failed to put measures in place to ensure it delivered the cleaning service to the block as expected.
11. The landlord treated the resident’s correspondence as a stage 2 complaint and issued its final response on 30 November 2023. It confirmed its housing officer inspected the block on 28 November 2023 and found cleaning had taken place on 21 and 28 November 2023. It acknowledged cleaning had not occurred during the week of 13 November 2023 and agreed to refund the charge for that week.
12. Our review of the stage 2 response found the landlord offered an appropriate resolution for the missed cleaning the week commencing 13 November 2023. The inspection on 28 November was a proportionate response to the resident’s concerns.
13. However, the landlord’s statement the caretaker cleaned the block on 21 and 28 November lacked detail about what evidence the housing officer relied on, particularly for the week prior to the visit. It would have provided confidence and re-assurance for the landlord to keep inspection records based on a checklist to evidence it assessed all areas.
14. In response to the resident’s claim the landlord’s staff failed to implement measures to ensure weekly cleaning took place, the landlord asked the resident for the full names of the staff members she thought were involved. While the resident had named staff in her complaint, it was not necessary for the landlord to request the full names for it to investigate this. The resident’s substantive concern was about inadequate monitoring of the delivery of the cleaning. The landlord should have referred to its estate management procedures and explained how it monitors service standards. The landlord has confirmed to us, at the time of the complaint, it carried out bi-monthly audits of the block. A reasonable response to the resident’s point about the lack of monitoring would have clarified how the landlord ensured it completed weekly cleaning.
15. Overall, we have found a service failure by the landlord in that:
    1. It did not take prompt steps to address the concern about the smell when the resident reported it on 1 May 2023.
    2. It stated its housing officer completed an inspection but did not provide clarification to us or the resident on what evidence it relied upon to determine the cleaning was completed. Particularly, the week prior to its inspection.
16. The landlord could have done more to demonstrate accountability, transparency, and collaboration. It could have invited the resident to inspections earlier, engaged the wider block community to understand concerns, and been clearer about its process for monitoring standards. These shortcomings affected the resident’s confidence and led her to feel her concerns were not taken seriously by the landlord.
17. We recommend the landlord clarify its procedure for monitoring the cleaning service, outlining clear standards and quality assurance measures. It should also pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which states that payments in this range are appropriate where the landlord’s actions have resulted in time and effort on the resident’s part and a loss of confidence.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to provide a stage 1 response to complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord provided its formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Communication

19. In light of the resident’s concerns about cleaning standards, while the landlord confirmed its housing officer inspected the block on 28 November 2023, it should consider the benefits of involving residents in future inspections. This would promote open dialogue, help identify concerns early, and build trust in the landlord’s approach to monitoring service standards.