Islington Council (202212752)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212752

Islington Council

24 August 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:
1. The landlord’s management of the communal cleaning service to the resident’s block, including the service charge for this service.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since December 1987. The property is a two bedroom flat on the third floor of a block of flats.

Landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy defines a complaint as:

“… an expression of dissatisfaction, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer, resident, or group of residents.”

The policy further confirms that “customers do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for a complaint to be regarded as a formal complaint.”
The landlord operates a 2 stage procedure. At stage 1, the policy states that “this stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated”. The second stage is the Chief Executive stage which is managed by the landlord’s corporate central complaints team.
In terms of timescales, the policy states that a complaint should be acknowledged within 3 calendar days at each stage. For stage 1, following a full investigation, a final response should be sent to the complainant within 10 working days of registration of their complaint.
If the complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they may request an escalation to the next stage of the landlord’s procedure. The policy states that a request for an escalation will be referred to the corporate central complaints team so that a review of the complaint can take place. A full stage 2 response should then be issued within 20 working days of it receiving the complaint. If more time is needed to complete an investigation into a complaint, an extension of up to 10 working days should be agreed with the resident.
The policy establishes that there may be “occasions where it is possible to identify potential problems that, if resolved swiftly can prevent a formal complaint being made.” In considering this step, the policy guides that any decision to try and resolve an issue without recording it as a formal complaint should be taken in agreement with the complainant. Without this agreement the matter should be recorded as a formal complaint at stage 1.

Compensation guidance

The landlord’s compensation guidance advises that where a complaint has been upheld “it is appropriate that the landlord should take action to rectify any problems that are due to mistakes or negligence…”
The aim of this guidance is to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity. It recognises that compensation may not always be financial but that it should be appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of an individual complaint.
This guidance provides a framework for financial compensation and advises that “we should be mindful that the compensation should reflect the injustice that the complainant has experienced.”
Under the heading “time and trouble” the guidance says that many complaints start out as service requests that are escalated where the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to address the issue. It goes on to say that “it is … sometimes the case that complainants have to pursue their complaint to a higher level of the complaints procedure than should be needed because their complaint has not been investigated properly, or appropriate remedies have not been offered at earlier stages.” This provides a compensation band of between £100 and £300 in these circumstances.

Caretaker quality assurance manual

In its introduction this document sets out that it has been produced to assist the landlord in providing a quality caretaking service by making its caretaking standards more objective and transparent. It provides a description of caretaking standards using both text and photographs. The manual is aimed at both the landlord’s staff and residents.
It establishes a regime of monthly inspections to be carried out by its quality assurance officers, for which it has a defined grading system of A to D. This is to provide an objective basis for evaluating its caretaking services. These inspections are supported by inspections undertaken by both resident inspectors and its housing managers.
The manual provides guidance on how to assess the standard of service and sets out factors to be considered in doing so. These include the condition of a building and such unforeseen circumstances as the “adverse effects of capital works programmes or other building work.”
This document sets out the roles and responsibilities of its estate services staff at each level, together with responsibilities for residents.
Under the heading “caretakers” it states:

“Caretakers are responsible for ensuring that all communal areas on … managed estates are maintained and cleaned to an acceptable standard. … Caretakers are also expected to report other problems and estate based issues, such as repairs, graffiti, anti-social behaviour, abandoned cars, fly-tipping and other breaches of tenancy, to the Area Housing Office.”

Under the heading “tenants and residents”, it states:

“Tenants and residents are reminded of their responsibilities to keep shared areas clean and tidy and to not cause or allow any untidiness or dirtiness in their property or the estate.”

The manual provides a list of caretaking standards of service and later establishes the frequency for these. To meet its commitments, it sets out that it will undertake the following:
1. Inspect and sweep all play areas.
2. Sweep and mop shared halls, porches, landings, and stairs, and remove any graffiti or other marks.
3. Clean the inside windows on all shared doors, landings, and staircases.
4. Clean, sweep, and mop all lift floors, walls, and doors inside and outside where possible, and remove any graffiti.
5. Check and clear blocked rubbish chutes where possible, or report blockages to the estate services team.
6. Sweep all estate paths and parking areas.
7. Check grassed and shrubbed areas, removing litter and leaves.
8. Check estate lighting, change bulbs and clean low level light shades as necessary, and report faults to the estate services team.
9. Remove large items of rubbish from our estates where possible or report them to the estate services team.
10. Remove unauthorised estate agents’ signs and other advertising boards fixed to shared areas on our estates.
11. Make sure that all our caretakers are trained to British Institute of Cleaning Science (BICS) standards.
12. Train all our caretakers in how to carry out their duties safely and effectively.
13. Provide our caretakers with the proper tools, equipment, and materials to carry out their duties to a high standard.
14. Arrange independent quality control inspections every month to monitor and record the standards of service our caretakers provide.
15. Ask customers for their opinion on our caretaking service, record their comments and compare them with our own findings.
16. Work with our customers to develop and introduce service agreements for estates, these agreements set out each caretaker’s duties and how often they should do them to meet the specific needs of each estate, we regularly review the effectiveness of these agreements.
17. Produce information about the number of quality control inspections we have completed, and the standards achieved, along with our customers’ comments.
The manual sets out what the landlord will do should it fail to meet these commitments. It says it will:
1. Give our customers the relevant name and contact details if they want to comment on any areas of our caretaking service that they feel we are not meeting.
2. Reply to any comments by the end of the next working day and bring our service back up to the expected standard within five working days where possible.
3. Investigate all complaints and reply in writing within 10 working days. We will consider any request for a refund where we have not been able to provide a caretaking service for more than five working days in a row.
4. Regularly review our systems and practices to make sure they meet our customers’ needs.

Summary of events

On 29 July 2022, the resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form. In this she set out the details of her complaint as:
1. There was a lack of regular cleaning to her block. The cleaning service had been patchy over several months and when the cleaning was carried out it was to a very poor standard.
2. The problem was compounded by the ongoing major works which “were adding to an already dirty environment.”
3. During the month of July, the block had only been cleaned twice, with no cleaning for the two weeks preceding her complaint. She had previously raised this with the landlord’s estate services team on 14 June 2022. It had advised that the regular cleaner had been off work and that it would monitor the service through July.
4. “The standard of cleaning is very poor and not provided on a regular basis, but residents continue to be charged for this and this needs to be addressed.”
Within her complaint she advised that she had also raised the issue with her local councillor at a recent surgery.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 1 August 2022. It advised that it had referred her complaint to its estate services team, who would contact her by 4 August 2022.
The landlord completed a caretaker inspection on 16 August 2022. This recorded an overall grading of C and noted that the block was undergoing major works which was causing increased dust and debris. It also recorded that the frequency of the service had been maintained, subject to caretaker availability.
On 2 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She stated that she had not been contacted by the estate services team or received a written response to her previous complaint. She said that there had been a couple of attempts to clean the block since August, but that this remained “hit or miss.” She requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on the same day and acknowledged that she had not received a response to her earlier complaint. It provided her with a link to its complaints policy through its website. The resident responded by return and asked what the next steps would be, as she had not received a reply to her original complaint within the landlord’s published timescales.
On 12 September 2022, the resident again chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. This was referred internally to the estate services team.
The resident contacted this Service by completing a web form on 14 September 2022. She explained that:
1. The landlord had failed to provide a response to her complaint, submitted on 29 July 2022, despite her chasing this.
2. There had been an ongoing issue with the cleaning to her block. The service was patchy, and the standards were poor. She had raised this with several of the landlord’s staff and the major works contractor, as well as within her formal complaint.
3. The major works had compounded the problem, as it had created additional dust and dirt within the block, which had not been cleaned up by the contractor.
4. She had been contacted by estate services on 13 September 2022, after chasing her complaint. It explained that there were staff resourcing issues and that “there was no allocated cleaner for the estate only a cover crew.” It further explained that the major works contractor was responsible for cleaning up the building dust.
5. She felt that as residents paid for the service through their service charges, the landlord was obliged to provide the service promised, and to its published standards.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent an email to the resident on 14 October 2022 acknowledging her complaint received via the Ombudsman. It apologised that it had not treated her earlier emails as a formal complaint and confirmed that it had now logged this at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that it would respond by 27 October 2022.
The landlord responded to this Service on 19 October 2022. It explained that:
1. The resident’s original complaint had been treated as a service request and this had now been logged as a stage 1 complaint.
2. It accepted that to “some extent” the resident’s complaints were justified. It explained that the ongoing major works were creating a greater than usual amount of dust and disruption.
3. This was compounded by the lack of a permanent caretaker; full time cover had been provided by its relief team.
4. It was due to make changes to its supervision of caretaking staff from mid November 2022 which would introduce more intensive supervision.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 27 October 2022. It said that her initial complaint had been raised on 29 July 2022 and acknowledged on 14 October 2022. It stated that her complaint was about the lack of cleaning to the block and that:
1. It agreed that intermittently the cleaning had fallen below accepted standards. This was due to a combination of factors; the impact of major works, caretaker sickness, a lack of resources to provide cover and the poor performance of a caretaker who had subsequently been dismissed. This last issue was identified as the cause of poor performance through July.
2. A full time agency caretaker was [then] in place, and this was expected to improve the service.
3. The major works, which included external brickwork repairs, were going to be both messy and disruptive. Action had been taken to minimise the disruption to residents, and the contractor had been instructed to mop and clean communal areas daily. This would be overseen by the clerk of works who would request additional cleaning if required.
4. The cleaning that should be carried out to the block was:
  1. Stairs should be swept and mopped once a week.
  2. Entrance lobbies checked daily and cleaned if necessary.
  3. Scuff marks should be cleaned from walls, windowsills and ledges and dusted once a week.
  4. Internal glazing should be cleaned every eight weeks.
5. The “caretaking element of the leaseholder service charges is reduced pro rata, whenever the estate services team are unable to provide a full service, after which, the actual hours worked are brought to the attention of the home ownership team who calculate the charges accordingly. The service charge for tenants is calculated on a different basis.”
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologising for the “patchy” cleaning service. It set out that it expected to “see standards improve now it had a full time agency caretaker in place.” It acknowledged that the major works would continue to cause some disruption but that it would manage this situation.
On 31 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to request an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the process. She explained that she was unhappy with the response she had received and set out why. She said that:
1. The complaint was submitted in August, but she did not receive a formal response until October. She said that she had chased for a response and asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage, but this did not happen.
2. She was contacted by estate services on 13 September 2022, who explained about issues with staff absence. This same information was provided in the complaint response she received in October.
3. The response explained that the regular cleaner was either off sick or not working to standard. She questioned what alternative measures were put in place to provide cover during this time as there were several occasions when the block was not cleaned.
4. Assurances had been given that the major works contractor would clean and mop at the end of each day, but this had not happened. She provided photographs to support her complaint.
5. The landlord had advised that leaseholder charges were reconciled to provide the actual cost of cleaning. As a tenant she wished to know what happens to their service charges and questioned if they were still charged when the service was not provided.
6. The block cleaning remained “very poor, irregular, and patchy.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 3 November 2022.
The landlord has provided a copy of its caretaker inspection completed on 21 November 2022. This recorded an overall grading of A, but reflected several issues with the standard of cleaning to be addressed. This included that the stairs and landings were very dirty, that the entry door glass was dirty and that the lobby area flooring was dusty and marked.
On 22 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s estate services team directly. The landlord had provided residents with a cleaning schedule outlining the roles and responsibilities of cleaning staff, and contact details for estate service staff. The resident explained that despite her previous complaints there had been no improvement in the cleaning service, and it did not meet the standards specified. She went on to say that the major works contractor had failed to clean up after works carried out in the communal areas which had compounded the issue.
The landlord responded directly and advised that it had undertaken an inspection of the block. Its findings mirrored the issues reported by the resident. It said that it would raise the issue with the major works contractor, and went on to explain that “it continued to face staffing issues, as it worked to recruit a permanent caretaker.” It had put cover arrangements in place and would be undertaking a “blitz clean” to the block in early December.
The resident emailed members of the landlord’s senior management team on 24 November 2022 “as a last resort” about the poor standard of cleaning being provided to her block. She explained that:
1. For many months, the estate cleaning had been extremely poor when it was carried out. Often it was not carried out at all.
2. She had contacted estate services and had received a response outlining staffing and resourcing issues as it tried to appoint a permanent cleaner for the block. There had been an absence of regular cleaning throughout the summer, and this continued into the winter. There had been no cleaning at all for the last month.
3. She had outlined the accumulation of dirt, dust, debris and staining on the flooring in the communal areas and that the block looked neglected. She felt that the response she had received was the same as she received in July.
4. On 23 November 2022 she came home to find that the floors had been washed, but that debris, dust and dirt had been swept into the corners and left on the floor. The windows had not been opened and the floor was swimming in water.
5. She understood that staffing issues had impacted on service delivery but did not understand why alternative arrangements had not been made given the length of time this had been going on.
6. She asked for “someone to intervene and take steps to establish the correct level of cleaning to the block that meets the standards included in the cleaning schedule which was recently sent to residents.”
7. Residents were paying for a service which needed to be scrutinised and improved. “This is simply not good enough for the landlord to provide a below standard, shoddy service to residents with no end in sight for any kind of resolution.”
The resident’s email was forwarded internally to relevant landlord staff and poor standards of cleaning and the issues with staffing were acknowledged, with reference made to its last communication to the resident on 22 November 2022. No evidence of a direct response to the resident’s email of 24 November 2022 has been provided to this Service.
On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. She asked for an update on when her stage 2 complaint would be responded to. She stated that there had been no improvement to the service or a resolution to her original complaint. The landlord replied and said that it was unable to provide an update regarding her stage 2 complaint. It was also unable to provide an indication of when the investigation of her complaint would begin.
The resident contacted a local councillor on 4 December 2022. She restated her complaint and provided a copy of the reply she received from her landlord on 22 November 2022. In her email she stated that:
1. The flooring was stained and dirty, and the communal garden was overgrown and neglected following the major works that had now been completed.
2. Her stage 2 complaint was currently on hold, but she had no timescale for when she would receive a response.
3. There appeared to be a complete lack of accountability or responsibility “to resolve the issue, provide a solution or improve the service.” Despite reassurances no improvements to the service had happened.
The councillor referred the resident’s email onto a senior manager of the landlord who referred it to the estate services team.
The resident emailed this Service on 5 December 2022. Within her email she set out the background to her complaint, explained that there had been no improvement to the cleaning service and that she was still awaiting a response to her stage 2 complaint logged on 31 October 2022. She explained that she did not know what to do next or how to get the issue resolved.
Between 5 and 8 December, in a series of internal emails, the landlord acknowledged the ongoing issues with the cleaning of the block and recorded the progress of the major works. On 7 December 2022, it was noted that the scaffolding had been removed and that the contractor had taken steps to clean up. It was further confirmed on 8 December 2022, that a temporary agency cleaner had been put in place to cover the vacant caretaker role.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 December 2022 regarding the resident’s complaint. It set a target for it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident by 19 December 2022.
On 14 December 2022, the landlord’s complaints team sent a request for information from internal staff to support its complaint response. There were internal email exchanges between 14 and 19 December 2022. On 19 December 2022, an inspection was conducted, and photographs taken to demonstrate noted improvements to the cleaning of the block.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident. This set out her complaint as:
1. She had not received a timely response to her stage 1 complaint.
2. Although her complaint was upheld, the proposed resolutions had not been put in place and the cleaning service remained poor and patchy.
3. The content of the stage 1 was based on information she had previously been given on 13 September 2022.
4. She had enquired what would happen to residents’ service charges, and wanted to know if these would be reconciled.
In its response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response. It offered compensation to the resident of £100 for this delay.
2. Offered a further apology for the time taken to respond to her complaints and the stress and inconvenience caused.
3. Noted that her initial complaint, logged on 29 July 2022, was about the frequency and quality of cleaning to her block, alongside her dissatisfaction with the major works contractor cleaning up through the works programme.
4. Acknowledged that its stage 1 reply provided on 27 October 2022 was outside of its 10 working day target, and this delay should have been explained in its response. It offered an apology for this oversight.
5. Explained that her complaint had initially been referred to its estate services team to see if the complaint could be resolved informally. The letter set out the dates on which the resident had pursued her complaint and detailed contact from this Service.
6. Acknowledged its failure to follow its corporate target times, upheld this element of her complaint and offered compensation of £25.
7. Set out the issues that had impacted the cleaning service, including staff sickness and the availability of staff to provide a consistent service. It advised of the standard of service that should be provided and the frequency of tasks to be carried out.
8. Provided feedback from estate services following a recent inspection. This had found the block to be generally clean. It noted that a final clean was due to be carried out by the major works contractor.
9. Explained that following the resignation of the previous agency worker, a new agency worker had been appointed. Its focus was to ensure that the current good standards were maintained.
10. Explained that tenant service charges were calculated differently to those of leaseholders. For tenants these were based on a percentage of the cost of the caretaking service across the whole of the landlord’s properties, rather than on the service delivered to a specific block. No automatic reduction was therefore applied when the service was not provided. Compensation could be offered in these circumstances where there was a service shortfall.
11. Having considered the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It noted that “many circumstances were beyond the landlord’s control, loss of staff and ensuing staff shortages, you nevertheless experienced a reduced cleaning service for much of the last year, with time and trouble to you in pursuing this matter.” It awarded £50 compensation for this element of her complaint.
12. Made a total offer of £175 compensation.
On 23 December, the resident emailed the landlord accepting the compensation. She said that she had seen an improvement in the cleaning service over the preceding three weeks and hoped that this would continue. She explained that she remained unhappy with the complaint process which had been lengthy and sporadic. She also stated that she was unhappy with the explanation around the cleaning service charge. The landlord had acknowledged that the block had been without a cleaning service for a significant amount of time. As such she did not understand how residents could be expected to pay for a service that was not provided, and that there was no refund process in place.
On the same day, the resident emailed this Service. She advised that she had accepted the compensation but remained unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. She said that:
1. The landlord had accepted that there was little or no cleaning service for a period of 6 months and upheld the complaint. It had also accepted that it did not follow its complaints policy.
2. She was unhappy with the complaint handling process and the length of time taken to reach a resolution. She felt that without her persistence and chasing, and without the intervention of this Service her complaint would not have been dealt with.
3. Additionally, she was unhappy with the explanation regarding service charges for the cleaning service and the different way that leaseholders and tenants were being treated. She said that she would progress this with the landlord. She stated that it did not seem fair that tenants paid whether they received a service or not.

Events post internal complaints procedure

On 15 March 2023, as part of providing evidence to this Service, the landlord clarified its position on service charges for its tenants. It explained that the service charge for estate maintenance and caretaking was calculated as a proportion of the total spend on caretaking across the entire landlord’s stock, rather than based on the specific number of hours spent cleaning individual blocks, as was the case for leaseholders. It had no policy that set out refunds for service charges for tenants.
In recognition of the intermittent service provided to the resident’s block, between November 2021 and November 2022, the landlord advised that it had made a discretionary decision to refund 50 percent of the resident’s service charge for that period, a total refund of £497.12.
The resident has advised that while there had been initial improvements in the cleaning service provided to her block, following the conclusion of the major works, issues have once again arisen around the quality of the cleaning. She raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of the communal cleaning service to the resident’s block, including the charge for this service

The resident first raised her concerns about the cleaning service directly with her landlord in June 2022 and followed this up by submitting a formal complaint in July 2022, when there was no improvement to the service.
Internal correspondence shows that the landlord acknowledged that there were issues with the service being provided. In her complaints the resident questioned the steps that were put in place to address the staffing issues.
The landlord had said that it experienced challenges in delivering the cleaning service. It was impacted by staff absence and poor performance, together with a lack of resources to provide cover for absent members of staff. Cover was initially provided by its relief crew before it brought in agency staff. The problems persisted over several months and its recruitment process appears to have been protracted.
It had advised that it would be taking steps to implement changes to the supervision of its caretaking staff from November 2022. This was to provide closer oversight of the service. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided what changes, if any, were put in place.
The landlord also identified the impact of the major works on the cleanliness of the block. It advised that the major works contractor was responsible for cleaning up after works were completed and at the end of each day. The actions of the major works contractor were to be overseen by the clerk of works. However, it is unclear as to the extent of engagement between the clerk of works and the estate services team to ensure that appropriate actions were taken to ensure the cleanliness of the block.
The resident’s frustration in the continued poor service was evidenced through her attempts to escalate the complaint both through the landlord’s formal complaints process and by contacting senior managers and her local councillor.
From the evidence provided the issues were referred on each occasion to the estate services manager. There was a lack of clear senior management oversight or intervention into the problems that were being experienced at the block.
Through her complaints, the resident asserted that residents were paying for the cleaning service through their service charges, and that the landlord was obliged to provide the services promised. In its stage 1 response the landlord provided advice to the resident on how refunds were made on a pro rata basis to leaseholders when services, such as cleaning, were not provided. It went on to advise the resident that service charges for tenants were calculated on a different basis, without providing a detailed explanation of this.
The landlord did not appear to consider whether the resident was a leaseholder or a tenant. Had it noted that the resident was a tenant, it gave no consideration to an alternative offer of compensation, given the acknowledged lack of service suffered by the resident.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that its tenants service charges were based on a percentage of the total costs incurred by the landlord for caretaking and maintenance services. It explained that there was no automatic reduction in these charges where the service was not provided, “although compensation could be considered as redress for any service shortfall.”
This Service cannot consider the methodology used by the landlord to set service charges for its tenants and leaseholders. In assessing the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the level of fairness applied by the landlord when addressing a failure in service delivery.
By way of compensation, within its stage 2 response, for the reduced cleaning service experienced “for much of last year” and in recognition of the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter, the landlord offered £50 compensation. This level of compensation was not appropriate, considering the length of time over which the service failure continued and the significant amount of contact required from the resident in pursing this matter. It also did not reflect the service charges levied to the resident throughout this period. Through its own explanation, the landlord had confirmed that leaseholders impacted in the same way would have seen their charge refunded proportionately. Furthermore, its caretaking manual states that it will consider “any request for a refund where we have not been able to provide a caretaking service for more than five working days in a row.”
The landlord reviewed its position 4 months later in March 2023 and agreed to refund the resident a percentage of her service charges for the period November 2021 to November 2022. This amounts to a total of £497.12. This was in addition to its initial offer at stage 2 of £50 for the reduced cleaning service and the time and trouble to the resident.
The percentage service charge refund offered was proportionate in the circumstances, as some cleaning tasks were completed during this period, and the resident’s service charge also provided a portion towards maintenance costs.
It was reasonable for the landlord to revisit its position on a refund to the resident of her service charge for the period where no effective caretaking service was delivered. It would however have been more appropriate to have applied such consideration at an earlier stage within its process. It should also have recognised the extreme effort required by the resident in bringing this issue to its attention and continuing to challenge the quality of the service provided.
The landlord’s own compensation guidance sets out an aim to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity and establishes that compensation should be “appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of an individual complaint.” In considering this guidance the level of compensation offered and the timeliness of this was inappropriate and disproportionate in the circumstances of the complaint.
Given the length of time over which the resident was raising her concerns about the lack of cleaning, the poor standard of cleaning when it was done, and the charge for a service that was not being delivered, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the communal cleaning service.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, including the steps taken by the landlord following the intervention of this Service, the Ombudsman has ordered a more fitting sum of compensation, aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

There were significant delays for the resident at each stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. It failed to register the residents contact in July as a stage 1 complaint, instead treating this as a service request. No contact was made with the resident and the landlord failed to ensure that there was follow up and resolution of the issue.
When the resident pursued her complaint in September, while acknowledging that the issue remained unresolved, the landlord still failed to record this as a formal complaint. A stage 1 complaint was only recorded and responded to by the landlord following the intervention of this Service in October 2022.
A total of 64 working days elapsed between the resident first raising her complaint and the landlord’s final response on 27 October 2022. This is significantly outside of the landlords published target of 10 working days.
In correspondence with this Service the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its failure in handling the resident’s complaint at this early stage. It has advised that it had provided additional training and advice to its staff responsible for managing complaints.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the date the resident first raised her complaint but failed to apologise for the significant delay in providing the response. In its conclusion the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It did not however provide any compensation in recognition of the lengthy delay in responding to her, or for its failure to provide the cleaning service about which she had complained.
On receiving the resident’s request to escalate her complaint the landlord appropriately acknowledged this and referred it to its corporate central complaints team to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 December 2022, 38 working days after receiving the escalated complaint. This was outside its published target of 20 working days.
At stage 2 of its complaint process the landlord offered £125 compensation in recognition of its delays in responding through its formal complaint’s process. This was broken down as:
1. £100 for delay at stage 2.
2. £25 for its delayed response at stage 1.
Given the poor complaint handling and lengthy delay at stage 1, the delay at stage 2, and the time and trouble caused to the resident in seeking to get her complaint addressed, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which was not put right by its offer of compensation.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation which is appropriate to its complaint handling failings in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the communal cleaning service to the resident’s block, including the service charge for this service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a failure to deliver an effective cleaning service to the resident’s block over several months. The landlord advised that this was due to staff absence and a lack of cover, but did not provide the resident with an explanation as to how it would address these issues in the future.
Additional dirt was created by the major works, which was not effectively addressed by the major works contractor. This was only compounded by the poor performance of the cleaning service. There was also no evidence of effective monitoring of the actions of the contractor.
The resident sought to both raise her complaint directly with the estate services team and to escalate to senior management but there was a failure to address the issue and take steps to improve the service delivered. The landlord did advise that it was making changes to its supervision of its cleaning service but no detail of these changes or the improvements delivered had been provide.
The landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of compensation through its responses to the resident at each stage of its complaints process.
Following the escalation of the resident’s complaint to this Service, the landlord reviewed the level of compensation and revised its offer. This was based on the actual charge levied to the resident and the length of time over which the service was disrupted.
There was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling at both stages of its procedure. It inappropriately failed to record the resident’s complaint at stage 1, leading to a significant delay in it providing a response. There was then further delay in its handling of stage 2. No regular communication with the resident was initiated by the landlord, and it did not provide any timescales for its complaint responses. All contact was reactive to direct chases and enquiries from the resident.
The delay in providing a response extended beyond the resident’s contact with this Service. The time taken to provide the formal response was not reasonable in these circumstances.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident a total of £997.12 compensation, comprising:
  1. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in raising concerns about the cleaning service with her landlord.
  2. £497.12 for the failure to deliver a cleaning service, based on a refund of service charge.
  3. £300 for the delays experienced by the resident through the complaints process, both at stage 1 and stage 2.
  4. The landlord’s offer of £672.12 compensation should be deducted from the above total, if already paid.
  5. Provide confirmation to this Service that this payment has been made.
Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Review the cleaning service to the resident’s block to confirm compliance with its service delivery standard.
2. Take steps to ensure that it has a clear process in place to ensure that effective cover is provided during periods of staff absence.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord should:
1. Review the complaint handling failures and confirm to this Service whether action has already been taken to ensure that these failings are not repeated, and;
2. If not, confirm to this Service what further action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again. This may include training on the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
3. Review its compensation guidance or approach to provide guidance to staff on how to compensate tenants where there is a lack of service provision, such as cleaning.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its engagement with residents about the services delivered to its blocks and estates. It should further consider sharing details of the dates of its monthly quality inspections and their outcomes with residents, and where possible encourage joint inspections.