London Borough of Wandsworth (202342591)

Decision
Case ID	202342591
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Wandsworth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. He raised a complaint to the landlord about the standard of communal cleaning. He reported ongoing issues with rubbish and litter accumulating in the stairwells, concerns about the effectiveness and regularity of the cleaning service, and delays in the landlord’s response to reports such as graffiti removal. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaint as he said the landlord was not proactively managing the cleaning.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:

a)     There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.

b)     There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. Although it was positive that the landlord said it would introduce improved processes, including cleaners taking daily photographs to support monitoring, it did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that it had done this. The lack of available evidence meant the landlord could not demonstrate that cleaning was carried out as required, and the resident has reported that the issues continued. Given these issues, the landlord’s offer of £60 compensation in the stage 2 response of 23 January 2024 was not proportionate redress for the failings identified.
6. The landlord met the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code at stage 2 but did not remedy delays at stage 1. The landlord took 29 working days in total from the date the resident first complained to issuing its stage 1 response. Although the landlord apologised for a short delay in sending its response from when it acknowledged the complaint, it did not acknowledge or remedy the much longer delay in acknowledging the complaint. The landlord did not take adequate steps to put right its service failure.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 March 2026
2	Order – Confirmation of cleaning contract and estate inspection frequency The landlord must confirm in writing to both the resident and us when/how often the cleaners are contracted to attend the estate to carry out specific duties such as rubbish removal and cleaning. The landlord must also confirm the frequency of the landlord’s estate inspections.	No later than 26 March 2026
3	Plan of action order The landlord must put in place a proactive plan of action to ensure it manages the build-up of rubbish. The landlord must provide a copy of the plan to both the resident and this Service by the due date.	No later than 26 March 2026
4	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £125. This is made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint about communal cleaning £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling The landlord may deduct from this the £60 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if this has already been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the poor condition of the stairwell. This included concerns about litter, graffiti, and evidence of drug taking.
7 December 2023	Having received no reply, the resident added to his complaint. He said the landlord had not responded and he was worried it was not reacting to complaints. He also said the cleaning contractor was not carrying out adequate checks or reporting issues. He said the block’s security was not being effectively maintained, which contributed to the issue. As a leaseholder paying management and cleaning charges, he felt the landlord was not delivering services to an acceptable standard. He asked for proper ongoing cleaning of all communal areas, compensation for the poor service and for the lack of response, and for the service to be proactive rather than reactive.
13 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said it would respond within 10 working days or would agree an extension with the resident.
3 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response, dated 29 December 2024. It noted the resident’s emails of 20 November and 7 December 2023. It confirmed that its senior estate services officer had asked the cleaning contractor to attend on the same day as the first email. However, the landlord accepted that no acknowledgement was sent to the resident. The contractor’s operative did not recall the specific request, although he stated that the building was cleaned daily due to ongoing issues with litter and people gathering in the stairwells. He did not remember reporting the graffiti. After receiving the complaint, the landlord arranged for an officer to re‑inspect the site, and it reported that it had removed graffiti in both stairwells. It explained that litter might sometimes remain for up to 24 hours between scheduled cleans, as it did not provide a 24‑hour service. The landlord acknowledged that its staff should have reported the graffiti and that communication with the resident should have been better. It recognised that the communal areas presented ongoing challenges and said it would use additional resources when needed. To reflect the inconvenience caused and the time the resident spent pursuing the matter, the landlord offered £30 compensation.
3 January 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said that although the landlord’s officer had given assurances in the Stage 1 response, the conditions on site did not reflect this. He noted that while the landlord eventually removed the graffiti, it had not explained why this had taken more than a month. He reported that the landlord was not inspecting the stairwells daily, as the same litter had remained in place for weeks or months. He said that although the landlord has cleared some litter in the south stairwell, this showed that the area was not being cleaned properly even when staff attended. He also said he had raised concerns about the lifts, lift lobbies and communal corridors, but no action appeared to have been taken. He explained that he had taken photographs each time he left the building and now had hundreds of images showing that the landlord was not cleaning the area effectively. The resident further reported that some residents were storing bicycles, furniture and refuse in communal corridors. He expressed concern about the potential risks this created.
3 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed it would respond within 20 working days. It advised that the resident’s concerns about items being left in communal areas did not form part of the stage 1 review and would be dealt with separately.
23 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It accepted that the resident had not received the level of service he should have. It said that while the areas could be challenging to maintain, its contractors should have the resources to meet the required standards. It acknowledged that its staff had failed to report the graffiti and that there had been further delays by the contractor in completing the work. It said such delays were unusual given that it normally removed 94% of graffiti within 72 hours. It apologised for the delay in this case. The landlord explained that the estate services manager had introduced a more proactive inspection approach at the block, with cleaners photographing the areas they had cleaned to support more effective contract monitoring. It noted that, because of the volume of enquiries about cleaning and graffiti, it was not always possible to post‑inspect every matter. However, it said it would expect areas affected by anti-social behaviour to receive enhanced attention from cleaners and estate services officers. It said processes were now in place to achieve this. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £60, in recognition of inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase the issues he had reported.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint about cleaning. He said issues with litter in the stairwell remained ongoing. He said he wanted the landlord to take a more proactive approach to cleaning, as he felt the cleaning service depended on him making reports to the landlord.

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.

Complaint	Cleaning
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

7. The resident raised concerns about the level of his service charge, in light of the issues he reported with communal cleaning. We may not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or their increases, or where it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy via another procedure, such as the Tribunal. It would therefore be fairer and more effective for the resident to pursue any challenge to the service charge through that route

What we have investigated

8. The information supplied by the landlord has significant gaps, particularly in relation to cleaning records and monitoring. These gaps limit the evidence available to show how the landlord managed the communal cleaning service and responded to the resident’s concerns.
9. The landlord referred to initial cleaning concerns made by the resident on 20 November 2023, but it did not provide us with a copy of this email or any earlier reports. In its response of 3 January 2024 the landlord said that its staff member recalled receiving the resident’s email and had sent a request to its cleaner to clean the stairwell the same day. However, the member of staff had not issued any receipt or acknowledgement. The landlord did not provide evidence of this. The earliest available evidence is the resident’s complaint about cleaning on 7 December 2023, which included a report about delays to removing graffiti. The landlord raised an order to remove the graffiti on 14 December 2023, but it did not remove this until 28 December 2023. The resident expressed frustration at the delay. In its final response of 23 January 2024, the landlord accepted that the cleaner failed to report the issue initially and that the contractor experienced further delays. The landlord did not meet the 3-day standard for removal in its repairs policy in this case.
10. The landlord only supplied us with a copy of one inspection record and one graffiti‑removal order. It inspected the block on 14 December 2023, awarding a Grade B. Under the landlord’s caretaking and cleaning standards, a Grade B is satisfactory, although a small amount of litter may be acceptable depending on when the last clean occurred. However, the inspection record lacked detail, and without cleaning logs it was not possible to determine whether the level of litter observed was reasonable or consistent with the cleaning standards. The landlord’s leaseholder guide states that estate cleaning of external areas is carried out by private contractors and that monitoring the standard of cleaning is the responsibility of the estate services team. This reinforces the requirement for the landlord to keep adequate oversight and records of contractors’ performance. The absence of such records in this case indicates that the landlord did not meet these obligations.
11. The landlord said in its complaint responses that cleaning should take place daily. It did not provide a cleaning schedule or any records demonstrating that daily inspections or cleans occurred. Although it said that contractors photographed cleaned areas, it did not provide these photographs or use them to address the resident’s concerns. In an email of 3 January 2024 the resident reported that litter remained in stairwells for ‘weeks, if not months’, suggesting that he thought that daily inspections were not taking place or that the cleaning undertaken was not effective.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 January 2024 confirmed that litter should not remain beyond 24 hours ‘save in exceptional circumstances’, indicating that daily cleaning was expected. The landlord provided no evidence that it met this standard.
13. In its final response of 23 January 2024 the landlord said that it had discussed the matter with its estate services manager and that processes had been introduced for more proactive management, including monitoring photos. This would have been positive, but the landlord did not evidence the discussion or produce any logs or photos.
14. The landlord further said that the stairwells and communal areas were ‘proving challenging’ for cleaning staff due to people gathering in these spaces and leaving litter. It explained that it would allocate additional resources if it considered this necessary. However, it did not explain why such challenges could not be managed within the existing cleaning contract or why the contractor had not already been instructed to address the increased demands. There is no evidence that the landlord queried contractor performance, requested inspection records, or otherwise exercised effective contract management. This raises concerns about its broader estate management.
15. In light of these findings, we have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a clear cleaning schedule and to implement a proactive plan to manage the build‑up of rubbish.
16. Where a landlord acknowledges failings, the Ombudsman assesses whether its redress is fair, puts things right, and shows learning, consistent with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £60 at stage 2 to reflect delays and the resident’s need to chase issues. While appropriate for a minor service failure, this level of redress does not reflect the shortcomings identified in record keeping and the lack of evidence of proactive cleaning. In line with our remedies guidance, which states that where acknowledged failings are not matched by proportionate redress, further remedy is required. We have therefore ordered further compensation.
17. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it put things right through the complaints process. Despite multiple requests from us for relevant records, the landlord did not provide the information needed to evidence how it managed the cleaning service or responded to the resident’s concerns. This lack of documentation prevented the landlord from showing that it met its obligations or that its offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s definition of a complaint within its complaints policy, and the timescales for responses at stage 1 and stage 2, are compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord said the resident first complained on 20 November 2023, but it did not provide a copy of this email. The resident chased a response on 7 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge or log the complaint until 13 December 2023, representing a 14‑working‑day failure to meet the Code requirement to log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. This was outside the landlord’s own policy requirement of acknowledging within 2-working days. It later accepted that the officer who received the email had failed to acknowledge it.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after logging the complaint, exceeding the Code’s 10‑day timeframe. The delay was minimal, and the landlord apologised for this in an email to the resident on 3 January 2024. It explained that the response had been ready, but it delayed sending it due to a communication error. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay, but it did not recognise the earlier delay in acknowledgement. In total, the landlord took 29 working days from the date the complaint was first made to the date the response was issued.
21. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that the resident’s additional concerns about items in communal areas would be handled separately, as these were raised after the stage 1 response. This was consistent with the Code. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the required timescales.
22. Overall, there was a failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1 because it did not acknowledge the complaint within its own policy timescale. Although the landlord apologised for some delay in issuing the stage 1 response, it did not remedy the delay. Taking this into account, there was service failure as the landlord did not put the matter right.

Learning

23. The landlord should review its systems for logging reports, monitoring cleaning standards, and retaining inspection information to ensure it can demonstrate compliance with its obligations. The landlord should also ensure that any improvements it commits to are implemented and auditable. Strengthening these practices will help the landlord respond more effectively to residents’ concerns and avoid similar issues in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient for the Ombudsman to carry out this investigation. However, the landlord did not provide key documents that we requested, such as cleaning logs and the resident’s initial complaint. The absence of these records limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate how it monitored the cleaning service or responded to the concerns raised. Strengthening its record‑keeping practices would support the landlord in evidencing its actions and ensuring effective service delivery.

Communication

25. The resident had to chase a response after making his initial reports, and the landlord did not acknowledge those reports promptly. However, once the complaint reached stage 2, the landlord communicated with the resident in a timely and effective manner. This demonstrates an improvement in its complaint‑handling communication, although earlier responsiveness would have reduced the resident’s need to pursue updates.