Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219943

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 April 2024

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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The standard of the communal cleaning at his scheme.
2. A rodent infestation at his scheme.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2010.
On 14 July 2021, the resident emailed a petition to the landlord about the lack of cleaning and issues with rodents at his scheme. In his email to the landlord the resident requested copies of the cleaning schedule, planned maintenance and estate inspections.
Between 26 July and 3 December 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor carried out 8 visits to the block. On the first visit, on 26 July 2021, ‘heavy rat activity in bin store’ was noted. The pest control contractor also said that:
1. A deep clean was required in the bin area, which need to be heavily disinfected.
2. Major proofing works needed to be done in the bin area, including the roof and ceiling.
3. The bottom of the bin store door had been treated with regards to pigeons but not for rats and mice, and so this would need to be done at the earliest opportunity.
4. Heavy vegetation to the side of the building would need to be cut back to expose the rat activity to larger predators, it was also ‘full of rubbish’.
5. The bins were overspilling which led to them not being usable. It was recommended that bin collection visits be ‘ramped up’ or extra bins be provided.
6. Residents should not leave their bins rubbish on the balconies as this just caused more issues.
7. The housekeeping was ‘poor’.
The landlord carried out an estate inspection the following day, on 27 July 2021, which recorded the condition and cleanliness of the internal bin stores as ‘good’ and that the condition and cleanliness of the internal communal areas as ‘acceptable’.
On 16 August 2021, the pest control contractor reported that their routine inspection identified ‘heavy bait takes due to rats consumption’ and recommended urgent attention to the bin store, stating that this was ‘the hub for rat activity’. The housekeeping was reported as being ‘poor’.
On 4 September 2021, the pest control contractor noted ‘mass bait takes around the bin area’ and that it had observed over 10 rats whilst in the store itself. The contractor recommended the immediate stop of the use of the bins store to remove the attraction for rats, for bristle strips to be placed on the bottom of doors and for the doors to be fixed so they shut tight. They also recommended an increase in their visits to site from 1 per month to 2 per month until less activity was seen. On this occasion the housekeeping was also reported as being ‘poor’.
The pest control contractor visited the site again on 7 and 9 September 2021 where further dead rats were found, which the contractor said seemed to indicate that they had gained control of the situation, although they would continue to monitor this. Following its visit of 9 September 2021, they also said that a power wash was required in the bin store area, which should also be heavily disinfected at the earliest opportunity. No score for the housekeeping was provided following this visit.
The visits by the pest control contractor on 16 October and 2 November 2021 made no further reference to rats but did note that mice activity was evident. The contractor recommended that the overgrown shrubbery at rear of block be cut back so as not to provide harbourage for rodents, and that the bin lids provided were used to prevent rodents accessing a reliable food source. The contractor also identified fly-tipping by the entrance to the block and recommended that this be removed as soon as possible. The noted that rubbish was piled up towards the back of the block, which they also recommended was cleared. On 2 November 2021, the housekeeping was reported as being ‘poor’.
On 3 December 2021, the pest control contractor reported that rodent activity (rats) was only identified to the open top bin store at the rear of the block and that all other perimeters were found to be clear of rodent activity. The contractor also reported a large accumulation of rubbish at the side of the building, which they said would attract, and possibly harbour, unwanted rodents. The contractor recommended this be cleared. The landlord forwarded the report to its estate services team the same day, who said that they would get the area cleaned.
On 15 December 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In a follow up email to the resident, on 16 December 2021, the landlord confirmed that its understanding of the resident’s complaint was that:
1. He was disputing the cleaning charges because of lack cleaning to communal areas, which he said had been constantly reported by residents. Nothing had been done about the standard of communal cleaning apart from jet washing, and the cleaners did not have sufficient tools, supervision or management.
2. He was not happy with the Housing Officer who kept telling him that they would get the issues resolved, but nothing happened. He was also not happy with the caretaker. He also had no confidence with the landlord’s online portal systems as he heard nothing back from its Estate Services team.
3. He wanted copies of estate inspections from last 3 years and a copy of rat and mice reports for his block, as he had had no communication with anyone even though he had requested this.
4. He would like a rebate on the cleaning charges as the cleaning was so poor and that the bin area had not been cleaned, only cleared, which had caused the rats issue. The resident said that this should have been cleaned daily in accordance with contract.
The resident attended a walk around on site with the landlord’s Head of Neighbourhood Management and a Resident Liaison officer on 28 January 2022. Following which, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 January 2022, in which said:
1. It had carried out an estate inspection on 28 January 2022.
2. In relation to the communal cleaning, the following had been identified: that bins were not being emptied by bus stop, the caretakers tools were not adequate, and that the resident had identified concerns about the landlord’s estate inspections and pest control reports.
3. Its Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) had confirmed, with its Environmental Services Manager, that all the concerns raised would be addressed.
4. It had arranged for the estate to be monitored, and regular checks had been conducted at different intervals over a period of time by its Head of Estate Services.
5. Its Head of Estate Services concluded the aesthetics of the main cores of the building were poor and at first glance the appearances is of an unkempt block. However, from a cleanliness point of view, the cores were relatively clean and that they were satisfied with the cleanliness of the building, that the surface level of cleaning was of a good standard, and that the required duties were being carried out by the caretaker.
6. With regards to the resident’s request for copies of its pest control and estate Inspection records the landlord said that, whilst it would not normally share these. it had attached a file containing both its Estate inspections and Pest Control reports.
7. In recognition of the issues that were involved with his complaint, it would like to offered the resident £75 compensation, this being made up of £25 for its response being outside of its published timescales and £50 for the disruption and inconvenience caused.
On 18 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that its complaint response had ignored his original complaints of July and December 2021, that the walk around on 28 January 2022 was not an inspection and questioned the value for money of the cleaning charges.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 25 April 2022.
Further visits were carried out by the landlord’s pest control contractor on 9 and 26 May, and 9 June 2022. The reports from these visits said that the housekeeping was either ‘ok’ or ‘average’. The contractor also reported:
1. That there had been no recent reports, or any evidence found of rodent activity. The bait had been re-laid and they would continue monitoring and controlling the site.
2. That there was a lot of waste debris and general rubbish around the site and requested that all waste and edible items were cleared away as soon as the spill occurred.
The landlord issued its stage 2, and final, complaint response on 8 June 2022 in which it:
1. Apologised for the delay in sending its response, for which it offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s request for a rebate of his cleaning charges was not addressed in its stage 1 response, for which it again apologised and offered a further £50 compensation.
2. Said that, with regards to the communal cleaning:
  1. The cleaning schedule had been attached and it would arrange for these to be placed on the communal noticeboards.
  2. A deep clean of the block had been scheduled to be carried out by the end of June 2022.
3. Said that, with regards to the rat and mice infestation:
  1. It had a contract in place with a pest control contractor for regular, routine service with monthly visits to cover the communal areas against mice and rats, which started on 21 July 2021. The most recent visit was on the 9 May 2022.
  2. The annual programme was due to end in July 2022 where a review would then be carried out to determine whether the annual programme would continue.
  3. It had further identified residents may be throwing food on the roof overhanging area. Therefore, it would remind residents how to dispose of rubbish to reduce the pest issues at the scheme.
  4. It had attached the latest pest control treatment report.
4. Made reference to the resident asking that compensation be paid to all residents of his scheme, but said that it would not be awarding compensation to all residents as there had not been any service failure in relation to the management of communal services. The landlord said that the compensation it had offered the resident was for the time he had taken to bring the issues forward and for the delay in it providing its response.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, further visits by the pest control contractor were carried out between 23 June 2022 and 17 February 2023. No evidence of rodent activity was found during these visits and the housekeeping was reported as being between ‘ok’ and ‘good’.
In his correspondence with this Service the resident said that:
1. They remain dissatisfied with the cleaning service for the communal block, which he said was not carried out on a regular basis and was not fit for purpose. They also disagreed with the charges for the cleaning service which they reported to be unsatisfactory.
2. The rat infestation was currently under control, but the mice infestation issue was unresolved. The resident said that the infestation was a result of the unsatisfactory cleaning service, particularly of the bin store area.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

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

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the standard of cleaning but rather to review whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns about service standards.
The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy, covers the planning, monitoring, management and delivery of services including, but not limited to: communal bin stores, entrance doorways and windows, stairs, hallways, passages and lifts. The policy goes on to state that its aims include, but again not limited: to setting out a pro-active approach to neighbourhood management and ensuring the quality of neighbourhood services it delivers, or procures, represent ‘value for money’ for customers.
The landlord’s website states that:
1. Its Estate Service team are committed to providing a caretaking service that meets a good standard and achieves its target of excellence.
2. Its cleaners/caretakers work to a schedule of tasks for each block. These schedules are displayed in most blocks and tell residents the tasks that their caretaker will carry out internally and externally on a daily, weekly and/or monthly basis.
3. The Team Leader will report any issues that need attention to the cleaners/caretaker and/or other teams and ensures that standards are brought back in line as quick as possible.
The cleaning schedule, provided by the resident, for the cleaning at their scheme states that cleaners/caretakers will:
1. Sweep and mop the lift 7 days a week.
2. Sweep and mop the staircase and landings on Monday and Thursday,
3. Walk staircases and landings, and sweep and spot mop where needed on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.
4. Litter pick external areas Monday to Friday.
5. Pull bins out and clean the bin chamber on Monday.
The landlord was asked to provide cleaners/caretakers reports for the period covered by this complaint, i.e. between 14 July 2021 and 8 June 2022, the date the landlord issued its final response. However the information provided only included information from 6 December 2021 to 13 March 2023, with no records being provided for the period between 14 July 2021 and 6 December 2021.
With regards to the cleaners/caretakers records provided that cover the period between 6 December 2021 and 8 June 2022, these report that:
1. They attended on only 4 days in December 2021, these being 6, 15, 29 and 30 December 2021. On 6 December 2021 it was noted that the bin area was cleaned and swept. No other activity was recorded. On 15 December 2021, the bin area was again swept and bulk rubbish cleared. On 29 December 2021, the caretaker recorded that the main entrance doors , handrails and bannister were cleaned, the block checked, the floors swept and a cobweb removed.
2. They attended only 2 times in January 2022, on 25 and 26 January, and checked the block and cleared bulk rubbish.
3. In February 2022 they only attended once, on 4 February 2022. During this visit the caretaker carried out most of the tasks on the cleaning schedule, including cleaning and sweeping the bin area.
4. No records have been provided for the caretakers attendance in either March or April 2022 and in May 2022 they only attended once, noting that they had moved the bins.
5. In June 2022, the caretaker attended 4 times. The records provided to this Service note that the only tasks carried out by the caretaker during all of these visits was the moving of the bins, and the sweeping and cleaning of the bin area.
The landlord has advised this service that the missing dates were where temporary staff completed the weekly cleaning service, and they did not have work phones nor did they complete tick sheets. Given that the landlord was evidently aware of, and has acknowledged, this gap in its records, it is unclear why it has not done something to address this. That has not done so indicates a shortfall, and lack of attention to detail in its monitoring and management of the cleaning service at the resident’s scheme.
In addition to the cleaner/caretaker’s record of attendance, the landlord’s website states that to ensure that high standards are maintained, quality assurance inspections are carried out by its Estate Services Team Leaders/Supervisors to assess the cleanliness of the residents building/estate. At the end of each inspection it will score the standard using a Good, Acceptable or Poor score.
The landlord has provided this Service with 8 of its Estate Services Team’s inspection forms completed between 28 March 2019 and 27 July 2021. All the inspection reports provided confirm that the frequency of the inspections is quarterly. However, the only inspection form provided to this service that relates to the period considered in this report is that of 27 July 2021, the landlord having failed to provide any other reports for the remainder of the period, i.e. between 27 July 2021 and 8 June 2022. That it has not done so, when the inspections were supposed to be quarterly is either evidence that it did not do the inspections or of an issue with its record keeping. Either way this represents a significant failure on its part.
Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently. The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has resulted in an unfairness to the resident as it has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to robustly assess its Estate Services Team’s monitoring and quality assurance inspections with regards to the communal cleaning at the resident’s scheme.
Due to the lack of records, it remains unclear as to how the landlord satisfied itself that the cleaning was being carried out and there had been no failure on its part in relation to ‘the management of communal services’ as established in its complaint responses to the resident.
In order to address this failure going forward, the landlord has been ordered to carry out a review of its Estate Service’s record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report. The landlord is then to provide this Service and the resident with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
Further, three reports from the landlord’s pest control contractors on 26 July, 16 August and 4 September 2021, state that the housekeeping at the resident’s scheme was ‘poor’, and yet the landlord’s estate inspection report for 27 July 2021 states that the condition and cleanliness of the communal areas was ‘acceptable’ and that the condition and cleanliness of the internal bin stores was ‘good’.
The complaints process was the opportunity for the landlord to carry out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns, to interrogate the evidence, identify any failures and, where these were found, to take steps to both provide redress for the resident and to ensure that similar failures do not take place going forward. Given that there was such a significant inconsistency between the landlord’s inspection findings and the reports from its pest control contractor, it would be reasonable to have expected the landlord to identify this and considered why that may have been the case. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
It is noted that the landlord did carry out an estate inspection on 28 January 2022, prior to issuing its stage 1 response, in which it said that it had it had arranged for the Estate to be monitored. However, it failed to acknowledge that there had been no evidenced estate inspections since July 2021, when these should have been quarterly, nor did it identify any other failings on its part that it should have acknowledged and apologised for.
Given these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made for which the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him compensation.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was subject to a cyber-attack in June 2022. However, as the landlord issued its final response prior to this event, this does not provide mitigation for why it failed to integrate or refer to any of this evidence during the complaints process.
In summary, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s communal cleaning concerns were not reasonable. It failed to evidence that it carried out any meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. There were also significant gaps in its cleaning records and its estate service’s inspections records for the resident’s scheme which meant that it also failed to evidence that it had complied with its obligations or that the service provided ‘value for money’ for its residents.
It is noted that the resident requested a refund of his service charges in respect of the cleaning service. This Service has not had sight of the breakdown of the resident’s overall service charge, which it is understood to have totalled approximately £9 per week in the time period covered by this report.
It is not within the remit of this service to take a position regarding the level or reasonableness of service charges as this falls within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable
Instead, and in order provide redress to the resident for the failures identified in this report, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation. This being in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range where there has been failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings nor made any attempt to put right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a rodent infestation

at his scheme.

The landlord’s Pest and Wildlife Policy states that its responsibilities are to:
1. Identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties.
2. Regularly inspect estates with known pest control problems and enter into a pest control contract for regular treatments for high risk blocks or estates (this will normally form part of the service charge).
3. Repair any damage to the structure of its buildings including outbuildings such as brick sheds, and any damaged cables or pipe work.
4. Eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas that it owns or manages, or those caused by its own actions or lack of action such as disrepair.
5. Arrange for regular cleaning of communal areas including bin stores and paladin bins.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor reporting ‘heavy rat activity in the bin store’. On 7 and 9 September 2021 they reported having found a number of dead rats and that they had gained control of the situation, and 9 May 2022 no evidence of rodent activity was reported. During this time the pest control contractor had attended site on at least 9 occasions. This Service is therefore satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to engage a pest control contractor, who in turn took action appropriate actions to address the situation.
However, in addition to directly addressing the rodent activity, the pest control contractor also recommended a number of actions for the landlord to take, including but not limited to a deep clean and proofing works to the bin area as well as removal of heavy vegetation and removal of fly-tipping.
When recommendations are made by its expert contractors the landlord is expected to take appropriate action in response to those recommendations. Where a landlord does not carry out the recommended works, it would be expected to provide a reasonable explanation for this. In this case the landlord made no mention of, nor provided any explanation for, it not carrying out the recommendations made by its pest control contractor.
Further the landlord has also confirmed to this Service that it has been ‘unable to obtain evidence to support actions taken in response to issues raised during pest control visits on 26 July 2021, 16 August 2021, 4 September 2021, 9 September 2021, 16 October 2021, 2 November 2021 and 9 May 2022’.
As with its estate inspection forms, this evidences that either it failed to take any action following the recommendation made by its specialist contactor or that there was a significant failure in its record keeping. Either way this represents maladministration by the landlord.
Further, the landlord again failed to use the complaints process to effectively investigate the resident’s concerns, to address the failures on its part or to take any action to seek to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future.
As a result of these failings the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £250 compensation, this again being in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range where there has been failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings nor made any attempt to put right. The landlord has also been ordered to include its response to recommendations made by its pest control contractors in the review of its record keeping processes and procedures previously ordered in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning at his scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns relating to a rodent infestation at his scheme.

Reasons

There were significant record keeping failures by the landlord with regards to the cleaner/caretaker reports and its own estate inspection forms for the resident’s scheme. There is also no evidence of the landlord carrying out any estate inspections other than the 1 that was carried out on 27 July 2021, despite its inspection forms confirming that these should be carried out quarterly. Further, it is evident that the landlord failed to undertake a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns, as evidenced by it not identifying a significant discrepancy between its own inspection of 27 July 2021 and the reports of its pest control contactors, the previous day, with regards to the standard of housekeeping at the scheme.
The landlord acted appropriate by engaging a pest control contractor to address the rodent issue at the resident’s scheme. However, it failed to evidence that it took any action in response to the recommendations made by that specialist contractor. The landlord also failed to use the complaints process to effectively investigate the resident’s concerns about its handling of the rodent infestation at his scheme, to acknowledge any failures on its part or to take any action to seek to ensure that similar failures did not occur in the future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for the failures identified in this report with regards to its management and record keeping in respect of the communal cleaning at the resident’s scheme.
  2. £150 for the failures identified in this report with regards to the landlord’s failure to evidence that it took any action in response to the recommendations made by its pest control contractor.
  3. £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident in having to pursue this issue through the formal complaints process. This is inclusive of the £175 previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
2. Review its record keeping processes and procedures light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report. The landlord is then to provide this Service and the resident with the outcomes of its review and details about what actions it intends to take as a result. This review is to include:
  1. Its estate management reports.
  2. Attendance and standards records of its cleaners/ caretakers.
  3. Its response to recommendations made by its pest contractors.

Recommendation

Given the failures identified in this report, it is also recommended that the landlord review its position, stated in its final response, that it would not be awarding compensation to all residents as there had not been any service failure in relation to the management of communal services.