Islington Council (202009624)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009624

Islington Council

25 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the communal area cleaning.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on the matter.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of a landlord. His flat is within a building of similar properties.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident complained about the landlord’s standard of cleaning in the lobby area outside his front door on 6 and 9 June 2020. Evidence of this correspondence has not been provided for this investigation.
  3. On 10 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said that it had inspected the building, and found the area to be clean and tidy. It explained that its caretakers would sweep and mop landings once a week, but not every day. It said it would monitor the building over the forthcoming weeks to ensure its caretakers were adhering to its high-quality standards. It is apparent that this was an informal complaint response.
  4. The landlord issued its formal stage one complaint response on 30 June 2020. It explained that the resident was responsible for cleaning the area in front of his door. It clarified that its caretaker would “sweep and maintain the area occasionally; however, this [was] not necessarily an area of responsibility”. It said that it did not uphold his complaint as it had not identified any service failures. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 July 2020. He said that due to “the lack of caretaking”, and “minimal if any cleaning”, the light in his landing had not been working for almost a year. He said that the stairwells were not being cleaned to the “specific standards”, and that the dustbin area was not being regularly cleaned in line with his “user agreement” (it is unclear what this agreement was). He also reported “dirty dusty hand rails”. He said that he had reported a dead pigeon “entangled in a net on the southeast side of the building” to the landlord (in May 2020), and the decomposing body was still there.
  6. On 16 July 2020 the landlord issued its review of the resident’s stage one complaint. It said that it had inspected the building on 14 July, and all the lights were in working order, except for some on the stairwell. It said that it had raised a work order on 10 June for them to be repaired, and that the necessary parts were still on order. It explained that it had not yet removed the pigeon as it was “too high and required a double ladder”, but it was only undertaking emergency repairs due to the COVID-19 lockdown. It provided a list of caretaking duties and the frequency with which they were to be completed. It explained that it usually carried out inspections to assess the quality of the cleaning, and caretaking in the building every six weeks. However, due to lockdown, they had not been as frequent, as most of its staff were working from home. It said that it had carried out an inspection in June (it is unclear exactly when), and deemed the cleaning to be satisfactory. It concluded by explaining how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  7. On 25 July 2020 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that “the state of hygiene remain[ed] substandard”. He asked whether the landlord had investigated the state of the building first hand.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 October 2020. It apologised for its delayed response. It reiterated what it had explained in its previous complaint responses. It confirmed that it had removed the pigeon on 17 July, and had fixed the lights on 21 July. It reiterated that it would carry out regular inspections to ensure the cleaning was of a high standard. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about the quality of cleaning

  1. The landlord’s caretaking manual states that the landlord must ensure “all communal areas…are maintained and cleaned to an acceptable standard”. It has four standards of cleanliness, all clear, satisfactory (“no more litter than you would expect as the day wears on”), poor, and very poor. Section 1.2.2 of the manual states that the landlord will “sweep and mop shared halls, porches, landings and stairs”. It will sweep and mop hall and porch ways daily, and landings weekly.
  2. The resident reported that there had been “minimal if any cleaning”, and that there were “dirty dusty hand rails”. The landlord advised him that due to the lockdown, it had been unable to conduct regular building inspections. This was a reasonable explanation as it is understandable that during a time when it was only carrying out emergency repairs, such inspections would have been deprioritised. Nonetheless, it carried out cleaning inspections in June 2020, and informed the resident that it considered the cleaning to be “satisfactory”.  It also explained that it would carry out more regular inspections in light of his concerns.
  3. The resident clearly had a different view to that which the landlord reached, but those opposing views involve a large element of subjectivity, and it is not the Ombudsman’s role to prefer one opinion over another. Rather, it is to assess whether a landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint. In this case, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, took reasonable steps to investigate them, and assessed the cleaning based on its policy and criteria.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has referred to the communal area in question as the “lobby area outside [the resident’s] front door”. In its informal complaint response it explained that it would clean, and mop the landings every week. Then, in its formal stage one complaint response it said the resident was responsible for cleaning this area. It said that it would occasionally sweep and clean there, but it was “not necessarily an area of responsibility”.
  2. The landlord’s caretaking manual clearly sets out that it is responsible for maintaining and cleaning all communal areas, including halls and landings. The resident’s property leads out to a communal area, and as such, any space outside his front door would presumably be the landlord’s responsibility. However, in its complaint responses the landlord said the area was the resident’s responsibility. It did not explain why it was contradicting its policy and procedures, nor provide any evidence to suggest that the usual responsibilities did not apply. The landlord’s handling of the complaint, therefore, caused confusion, and mismanaged the resident’s expectations.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of the communal area cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out inspections in light of the resident’s concerns, and explained its assessment to him.
  2. The landlord failed to explain why it was not responsible for cleaning an area in a communal lobby, and its formal complaint responses were not in accordance with its caretaking manual.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the service failure identified with its complaint handling.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made, and the resident should contact this Service if payment has not been received by the due date.