Clarion Housing Association Limited (202001388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001388

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 July 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. concerns raised by the resident about communal cleaning;
2. repairs to the communal door;
3. the resident’s reports of a faulty front door to his flat.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. His tenancy began on 10 June 2019 and the landlord has described the property as a two-bedroom first floor flat. The flat is within a block.
The tenancy agreement terms and conditions require the landlord to ‘repair and maintain the structure’ of the property, including ‘any shared parts of the building’ and ‘to keep the exterior of your home and any shared parts in a reasonable state of decoration’.
The landlord has an ‘estate cleaning standards guide’ that sets out that it will:
1. use caretakers to ensure ‘the estates and blocks are kept clean and tidy…, including sweeping and washing floors and cleaning lifts and bin areas’
2. carry out monthly block inspections that assess whether the block meets its gold, silver or bronze standard
3. assess these standards by checking communal spaces for dust and debris, presence of refuse or graffiti and ensuring floors have been cleaned.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy that outlines that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord has a complaints policy that requires to it to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. It says that it will aim to keep residents informed if complaints cannot be resolved within this timescale.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised on 20 November 2019 due to the resident’s report that mice were entering his flat through gaps around his front door. It noted that it attempted a visit unsuccessfully on 10 December 2019 and closed the repair on 6 January 2020 on the grounds that no gaps were found and the mice were coming up through communal landing water pipework.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 April 2020. It asked him to provide photographs so the concerns he had reported about a drop in cleaning standards could be considered and signposted him to report a communal front door issue to its repairs service. The resident replied the same day with the requested photographs.
The resident chased progress on 18 May 2020 and the landlord responded that day. It advised that the block cleaner had evidence that he cleaned the area after the resident’s photographs were taken but that a deep floor clean may be necessary.
The landlord added on 19 May 2020 that it had passed the resident’s ongoing concerns to the relevant estate services team so the cleaner could attend again. It asked the resident to let it know if there were still problems the following week.
The resident made a report on 25 May 2020 that the floor was still greasy with the corners filthy and that he had almost slipped. He added that the smell from the cleaner’s mop was overwhelming and that he would need to escalate the issue.
The resident raised the matter with the landlord again on 10 June 2020. He advised that the cleaning was still of a poor standard, the cleaner’s cupboard smelled bad and there were mice in the internal walls.
The landlord originally logged a complaint from the resident on 25 June 2020. It spoke to the resident on 6 July 2020 and clarified that his complaint related to four outstanding repairs, scaffolding being left in place for too long, communal cleaning standards and communal door repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 July 2020. He reported that the cleaning was still of the same standard and that the cleaner had used dirty water that day and had flooded the communal area by using too much water.
The landlord sent a complaint holding email to the resident on 10 July 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2020 to reiterate that his concern was why the communal door needed repairs and to add that the cleaning was very poor.
The landlord offered the resident a further complaint update on 29 July 2020 that set out its findings to date on the communal door, namely that it had attended to the door on a few occasions but no genuine repairs had been reported to it as the issue with the door was resident misuse.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 August 2020. It upheld aspects of his complaint about outstanding repairs but on the matters that are relevant to this investigation, it concluded that:
1. there had been no service failure in regard to repairs to the communal door that were attended to in July 2018, November 2019 and March 2020 and no further investigation or works were required
2. works had been needed because residents had used the break glass unit for access so housing officers would usually write to residents to check they have fob keys for access
3. there were no records of caretaking failures at the block in 2020
4. communal spaces are cleaned weekly and a deep clean was undertaken on 20 May 2020
5. monthly block inspections are conducted and the landlord carried out an unplanned inspection on 18 June 2020 and a planned inspection on 7 July 2020, finding ‘the standard of caretaking is currently compliant with service delivery’.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 August 2020. He asked to appeal against the complaint closure on the grounds that:
1. gaps under his doors were clearly visible
2. the landlord had ignored his requests to investigate the communal door failings
3. the building was filthy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 August 2020 and 28 August 2020 – it sought more details about his complaint and requested he provide any supporting evidence he wished for them to consider.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 and 8 September 2020. It re-invited him to make comments in support of his complaint escalation, confirmed that a tree issue was also being dealt with separately as a complaint and advised him to report any internal door repairs to its customer services team as these were not part of the original complaint. It noted further details about the points made by the resident as part of his complaint escalation:
1. the communal floor is sticky and never mopped
2. the caretaker should be replaced
3. the stage one complaint response was misleading on the communal door issue as the dates set out were incorrect and the problem had occurred 7 times.
The resident made a report on 30 September 2020 that the communal front door was faulty again.
The resident advised the landlord on 1 October 2020 that there was a gap under his flat entrance door, causing a draft. This was in an email exchange regarding a legal disrepair claim that was ongoing. The landlord recorded an inspection that day where it concluded that there was ‘a slight bow in the door which will let air through’ and recommended installation of ‘a small know/handle at the bottom of the door to pull the door to the stop’ plus ‘a bolt to keep the door tight against the stop’.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 9 October 2020. It concluded that:
1. a block cleaning inspection was conducted on 15 September 2020 and audit photographs had been checked with no service failures identified
2. the service level is for the caretaker to clean daily, the floor to be mopped once per week and a deep clean once per year
3. monitoring of future cleaning performance would be continued and the resident would be invited to the next monthly block inspection on 1 November 2020
4. it had been unable to establish what information about the communal door the resident thought was incorrect and why he thought it did not meet fire safety standards as the resident had not responded to its request for more information about his escalation reasons
5. a communal door repair had been raised on 11 March 2020 and attended to on 13 March 2020 when it was discovered that there was a problem with the fire drop key and that the break glass unit had been pressed and needed re-setting
6. prior communal door ‘repairs were reported on 26 November 2019 and attended to on 29 November 2019 and before that, July 2018’ and that these were ‘due to residents of the building using the emergency break glass button to exit the building’ so the housing team would write to residents
7. the door had been ‘visually inspected to ascertain if it meets fire safety regulations’, and it noted that ‘it is a security door and is not a fire door’ but that the ‘building meets all safety regulations, and is inspected every three months to ensure compliance is maintained’
8. there had been no previous request to check the resident’s internal doors but it had arranged an inspection on 1 October 2020.
The resident replied on the same day – he said that the investigation had been manipulated and emails ignored.
The landlord has evidenced that it undertook 26 caretaker visits to the resident’s block between April-October 2020 with the following details:
1. these were carried out on Wednesdays and Thursdays
2. the longest gap between visits was 14 days during 8-22 April 2020 and 20 May 2020 to 3 June 2020
3. the visit records show that the floors were mopped and swept on each occasion except one in September 2020 when floors were not mopped
4. the member of staff usually recorded spending 2-3 hours on site each week.
The landlord has also evidenced supervisor inspection visit records that show:
1. it attended to assess cleaning standards on 9 occasions between April-October 2020
2. each of these assessments classed the standards as ‘silver’
3. the only comment made about the flooring was that it required painting in some areas but that the cleaning was keeping it in as good a condition as it could be.
The landlord’s repairs records show jobs were raised on 4 November 2020 and 13 January 2021 in regard to the resident’s flat front door. The first job was cancelled and the second job was recorded as complete on 15 February 2021 although it is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service what works were completed.
The resident has approached the landlord to raise more recent cleaning concerns:
1. he advised the landlord on 25 May 2021 that the caretaker had not attended for two days and the estate was unclean (this was within an email exchange that covered a variety of issues, including the provision of bins)
2. he advised the landlord on 31 May 2021 that he understood the caretaker was off sick and raised concerns that the block was not being cleaned or sanitised
3. he added on 3 June 2021 that the caretaker was off sick and there had been no cover put in place for almost a week and raised this again on 4 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Communal cleaning

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the standard of cleaning – this Service reviews whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns about service standards.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident began to report concerns about communal cleaning standards in April 2020. Over the subsequent months, the resident’s primary concern was the cleanliness of the communal flooring which at various times he described as dirty and never mopped.
The landlord’s records indicate that it had not cleaned the block for 14 days at the time of the resident’s initial report – this was outside of the weekly clean that it later told the resident it provides. However, the landlord has evidenced that it undertook a clean and supervisor assessment on the same day of the report – these actions were reasonable and demonstrate that the landlord was resolution-focused.
The resident continued to report cleaning concerns during May-June 2020. In response, the landlord has evidenced that it increased the rate of its block inspections, carrying out four of these between June-July 2020 instead of the monthly inspections its estate standards cleaning guide require. This demonstrated that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports and took steps to check whether cleaning standards were being maintained.
The resident raised the matter as a complaint in June 2020. The landlord responded in August 2020 by checking the cleaning records for the block and established that there had been no caretaking failures. The evidence seen by this Service indicates that this information was broadly accurate – with the exception of a week in late May 2020, the cleaning records between 22 April 2020 and 20 July 2020 show that the cleaner attended the block and mopped the floor every week in line with its cleaning standards guide and that all of the monthly supervisor visits in this period rated the standard as ‘silver’ which meant it found the cleaning was to a reasonable level. The landlord’s approach to check its cleaning records and rely on these to answer the resident’s complaint was reasonable.
The resident continued to make reports between August to October 2020 that the communal flooring was sticky and unclean and the caretaker should be replaced. The landlord escalated the complaint and conducted four further block estate inspections in this period, including a specific visit in response to the complaint on 15 September 2020, again concluding that the cleaning was being completed to its ‘silver’ standard. The landlord’s approach to check its cleaning records and carry out an ad hoc block inspection in response to the resident’s continued complaints was reasonable.
The resident has raised more recent cleaning concerns during May-June 2021 but these matters are not within the jurisdiction of this Service as they have not been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In summary, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s communal cleaning concerns were reasonable. It checked its cleaning records to establish that floors were being mopped each week in line with its obligations and conducted block inspections (in addition to its usual monthly visits) that determined that the block was being cleaned in line with the standards required.

Communal door repair

The resident initially reported a concern about maintenance of the communal front door when the landlord spoke to him in early July 2020 to establish the reasons for his complaint. He subsequently confirmed that his concern was how regularly the door required repair.
The landlord said it had reviewed its repairs records and advised the resident that there had only been three repairs orders raised between July 2018 and March 2020 which were related to residents having used the break glass unit to access the building. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider its records and provide the resident with context to the repairs that had been raised to the communal front door in recent years.
The resident disputed the findings presented by the landlord and said that the door did not meet appropriate safety standards. However, no evidence has been seen by this Service to either indicate that the landlord’s comments within the stage one complaint response were inaccurate or to substantiate them. Nevertheless, the landlord visited the block to assess the door and offered assurance to the resident that it met building safety regulations and it was not disputed that there was no repair needed to the communal front door at the time of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord reviewed its repairs records when the resident raised concerns about the regularity of the need for communal front door. It concluded that only three repairs had been raised over the previous two years and that these were attributed to resident use rather than the door being defective. No evidence has been offered to contradict this assessment and the landlord’s investigations into the issue were reasonable.

Front door repair

The resident initially reported an issue with gaps around his flat front door in November 2019 which he linked to a pest control issue. The landlord attended the property and established that rodents had accessed the property using communal pipework rather than any gaps around the door so it closed the repair job. It was reasonable for the landlord to attend the flat to investigate the resident’s report and conclude that no repair was necessary when it identified a more likely means of pests accessing the property.
The resident raised the flat front door issue again in August 2020 when he escalated his complaint – he mentioned that gaps were clearly visible under his door. The landlord inspected the door on 1 October 2020 and established that there was a ‘slight bow’ in the door. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the resident’s front door given it was unclear from his report what works were required.
The inspection led to works being recommended to install a handle and bolt to tighten the door to the frame. A repairs order was raised on 4 November 2020 in regard to this repair but the job was subsequently cancelled. It is unclear why the works were cancelled nor why it took until 15 February 2021 for the works to eventually be recorded as complete. The landlord was aware of the works it needed to carry out to the resident’s front door as early as 1 October 2020 but these were not completed until mid-February 2021. This was outside of the landlord’s 28-day timescale within its repairs and maintenance policy for non-emergency repairs and was therefore inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord’s initial responses to the resident’s reports of a faulty front door were proportionate. However, it delayed by four months in completing works to the front door that it had determined would remedy the gaps that the resident reported.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. concerns raised by the resident about communal cleaning;
2. repairs to the communal door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty front door to his flat.

Reasons

The landlord made reasonable investigations into the resident’s communal cleaning concerns by checking its weekly cleaning records and carrying out additional block inspections that established its cleaning standards were in line with its service requirements.
The landlord checked its records to establish that it had completed repairs to the communal front door as and when reported and took reasonable steps to ensure that there was no defect to the door.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in completing works to remedy the resident’s faulty front door.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty front door to his flat.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should write to the resident to respond to the communal cleaning standard concerns he raised during May-June 2021.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should write to residents of the block to ensure they have fob keys for access to the building.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.