Hyde Housing Association Limited (202112348)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112348

Hyde Housing Association Limited

5 October 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about the provision and delivery of communal cleaning to the block; and
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from October 2009. The resident occupies a 4-bedroom ground floor maisonette with street level access.
On 14 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the services she was receiving. She said the services were inadequate and had been since she moved into the property. The resident also felt that she was being charged for a number of services that she did not benefit from in particular grounds maintenance and communal cleaning. Further, she stated that the walkway that she used to access her front door was not being swept and that her windows were not being cleaned.
The resident did not hear back from the landlord and subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 August 2021. Following contact from this service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 October 2021. In summary:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing a response; however, it did not agree that the resident had been charged an incorrect amount for the services provided.
2. The resident’s property is part of the building and she is required to contribute to the overall running costs.
3. In regard to the walkway in front of the resident’s property, the landlord believed that this was part of the local authority’s responsibility. However, it carried out a Land Registry search which indicated the walkway belonged to the landlord. Sweeping of the walkway was subsequently included in the contractor’s weekly cleaning duties from July 2021.
4. It was the responsibility of the resident to clean their own windows but should the issue relate to communal windows, the property manager would investigate further.
5. It had created a new service charge team, to act as a point of contact for its residents when they have a service charge enquiry.
6. It offered £100 compensation comprising £50 in recognition of the delays in responding to her complaint and £50 for not keeping the resident informed throughout its complaints process.
Dissatisfied with this response, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 November 2021. She felt she was being charged for certain services which she did not benefit from, and that the window cleaning and the sweeping of the walkway had been neglected. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the general environment of the block and questioned if the landlord was able to provide all of the services she was charged for – if it could not, it should deduct a corresponding amount from the service charge.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 February 2022. It reiterated its position in its stage 1 response. Additionally, it:
1. Apologised for its overall communication and how long it took to provide a response.
2. Increased its compensation offer by £50 to reflect the delay in responding to her service charge query and poor complaint handling.
3. Explained that her home was a 4-bedroom ground floor maisonette within the wider block of 138 flats and that the resident is required, in line with the tenancy agreement, to contribute towards the cost of providing the services.
4. Explained that the sweeping of the walkway outside her property had now been included in its contractor’s weekly duties.
5. Said if the resident believed any services had not been completed or were completed to a poor standard, she needed to contact the property manager.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord offered a further £100 compensation for its failure to previously sweep the walkway, making the total compensation offered £250. The resident refused to accept the offer. She felt that her complaint had not been dealt with satisfactorily. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted a refund for cleaning charges and the landlord to provide a consistently good cleaning service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as we do not have the authority and expertise to do so. In this case, however, the resident’s complaint relates to the provision of communal cleaning services. This investigation will focus on whether the landlord’s response to her concerns was in line with its policy and good practice, and whether its actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This service acknowledges the resident’s comments that she had first reported concerns in 2018 and that this has been a longstanding issue which she reports every year. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claim, this investigation will not seek to consider matters as far back as 2018. This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues they are dissatisfied with to the landlord’s attention in good time. This is set out in paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, which explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord, by way of a formal complaint, within a reasonable period – which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. As such, the investigation will focus on the events which occurred in the period beginning six months prior to the resident’s complaint in June 2021 up to the landlord’s final response.
Additionally, in the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident asserted that the landlord neglected cleaning her block because of the ethnicity of its residents. This aspect does not appear to have been brought to the landlord’s attention and so it has not had an opportunity to respond. As above, the Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues they are dissatisfied with to the landlord’s attention in good time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision and delivery of communal cleaning to the block

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the applicant. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord defines a service charge enquiry as a “request for information or supporting evidence for the costs or quality of services where costs are included in either estimated service charge statement or the actual service charge statement”. In the instance that service charge adjustment is required an adjustment will be made to all affected customers and not only those that have raised an enquiry. Whilst a service charge enquiry is being investigated, residents are expected to continue to pay service charge in full.
When a resident wishes to report a problem with the service delivery or standard achieved, their comments will be passed to a property manager who will investigate and raise the issue with the contractor. In addition to property managers, there are contract managers whose job it is to make sure the services meet customer needs and offer good value.
The landlord has an obligation to provide the services listed in the tenancy agreement, for which the resident will pay a service charge. Upon receiving reports that cleaning service is substandard or of poor quality (a service charge enquiry), the landlord should, in line with its policy, investigate the matter politely and professionally and take the appropriate action in the circumstances in a timely manner.
The resident is a general needs tenant. The landlord’s estate cleaning and grounds maintenance specification sets out what services are carried to its buildings. With respect to the estate cleaning, the landlord includes cleaning of the internal common parts of the building including communal windows. Its grounds maintenance specification includes litter picking and hard-standing maintenance including sweeping.
The landlord also sets out the cleaning frequency for general needs properties. It states that it carries out communal internal window cleaning every three months and the external communal window cleaning twice a year. The specification also indicates that communal external areas should be swept weekly.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the quality of services provided and also stated that her property does not benefit from certain specific services included in the service charge statement. In particular, the resident said the walkway outside her property and her windows had been neglected.
It is also noted that the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it began cleaning the walkway in July 2021 following the resident’s complaint. In view of this, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord had read her complaint and established it had a responsibility to clean the walkway. Yet it failed to inform the resident of this until she chased for a response. This was a failing in communication on the part of the landlord which it acknowledged.
Given the location of the resident’s property, it is not disputed that the resident would not benefit from services such as lift maintenance and repair, communal bins stores, and controlled door entry. The landlord stated that as the resident’s property is part of the building, the resident is required to contribute to the overall running costs of the building, in accordance with the tenancy agreement. This was a fair and reasonable response and there was no evidence that the resident had been treated unfavourably compared with other residents.
With respect to the window cleaning, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that its window cleaning contract is in respect of communal windows only, not windows that belonged to the resident’s own property. In its stage 1 response it noted that the resident’s windows were not the ‘tilt and turn’ type and explained it is the responsibility of the resident to make their own arrangements, for example, paying for their own window cleaner. The landlord’s response was reasonable in this respect and it acted in line with its cleaning specification. Further its explanation was clear and it set out the options available to her.
The Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s comments that the grass areas adjacent to the walkway is owned and maintained by the local authority. The landlord established that the walkway should have been included in the list of communal external areas that are swept weekly, and arranged for it to be included in future, which was a reasonable approach to take. While there was oversight of the landlord as it should have already been aware of this matter, it was appropriate of the landlord to investigate the matter which it did by carrying out a title plan search within a reasonable timescale. Subsequently, it introduced the cleaning of the walkway into its contractors weekly duties. In this regard, its offer of compensation of £100 for failing to sweep the walkway was satisfactory in putting things right in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests an award of between £50 to £100 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
In the resident’s complaint, concerns were raised about the poor quality of cleaning in general. If a resident wishes to report a problem with the service delivery or standard achieved, their comments will be passed to a property manager who will investigate and raise the issue with the contractor. However, the landlord did not appear to do this in its stage 1 response. While the landlord informed her in in its stage 2 response that if she believed any services have not been completed or completed to a poor standard, she should contact the property manager. This was an oversight on the landlord’s part and it should have addressed this earlier by forwarding her concerns to the property manager at the time of her complaint so that the matter could be dealt with accordingly.
The landlord has provided inspection reports dated 25 January and 15 March 2023. These inspection reports indicate the quality and delivery of communal cleaning is up to its service standards and specification. Additionally, the landlord has provided photos dated May 2023 which show the cleaning and general maintenances specification on the notice boards, sign-in sheets for its cleaning staff, condition of the lockable bin stores and the resident’s individual bins which are stored in a secure cubicle at the front of the maisonette.
The landlord has said the building is well maintained which is supported by its inspection reports. Furthermore, it said is one of the few buildings which has a dedicated cleaner which provides a daily service solely to the building. While the inspections and photos post date its formal responses, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has demonstrated a willingness to address the resident’s concerns about the provision and delivery of communal services and it appeared to make sufficient efforts to put things right and learn from outcomes in response to a service charge enquiry and subsequent complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. The landlord aims to provide a response within 10 working days. If the resident is not satisfied with the stage 1 complaint, they may request an escalation. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide a response within 20 working days following receipt of request.
The landlord did not dispute there were service failings in its communication and complaint handling. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 June 2021, but did not receive a response within 10 working days. This led to the resident contacting this service for assistance and the landlord’s failure to engage with the complaint would have caused frustration and upset. Moreover, the landlord failed to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident’s escalation request was received on 13 November 2021 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 February 2022 – almost 100 days later. It is noted that before the stage 2 response was issued, the landlord did alert the resident that there would be delays and shared a date it intended to respond. This was a good practice and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, however, it remains the case that it did not respond when it said it would nor did it follow its timescales in its complaints policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays and its poor communication and complaints handling, for which it offered £150 compensation overall. This was in line with its compensation policy which states compensation may be offered in recognition of the time and trouble taken by a resident to make their complaint, along with distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The compensation award for its complaint handling failures exceeded the suggested award in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests an award of between £50 to £100 where there has been service failure. The Ombudsman considered the landlord put things right with respect to its communication and complaint handling failures and its offer of compensation adequately reflected the detriment caused.

Conclusions

Overall, the landlord demonstrated it had learned from outcomes as it introduced the cleaning of the walkway outside the resident’s property. Further, it apologised and offered compensation for its failures. While the Ombudsman acknowledges, that this did not resolve the resident’s concerns about the quality of communal cleaning, it is considered that these were reasonable remedies. The landlord has since undertaken inspections which indicate the property’s cleaning services are up to standard. However, the resident’s initial concerns about the quality of communal cleaning should have been passed by the landlord to the property manager in the earliest instance. A recommendation is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, with respect to its response to the resident’s concerns about the provision and delivery of communal cleaning to the block, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, with respect to its handling of the complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure its property manager engages with the resident if future concerns are raised so that she can share her specific concerns about the quality and/or delivery of services. If appropriate, the property manager may liaise with the estate’s contract manager to rectify any specific issues.