LiveWest Homes Limited (202216570)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216570

LiveWest Homes Limited

21 July 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 standard of cleaning to communal areas.
2. The landlord’s lack of communication.
3. The decoration of the lobby area.
4. An increase in service charge.
5. Repairs and alterations to the cladding on the building.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The resident can find further information about the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) service which considers disputes around service charges, online on the First Tier Tribunal’s website.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a), the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs and alterations to the cladding on the building, the decoration of the lobby area and the standard of the cleaning since the landlord’s final complaint response. As these concerns have not been escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, they have not been considered in this assessment. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Background

The resident holds a shared-ownership lease with the landlord.
Other residents reported issues with the cleanliness of the block the resident lives in, dating back to 2021.
On 21 February 2022, the resident sent photos of the communal areas in her block to the landlord. She said there were stains on the floor and that the cleaning of the communal areas was substandard. She asked the landlord to confirm when the cleaners were due to come. She asked that the landlord speak to the cleaners about the quality of their work.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 February 2022. It said it had visited the block three weeks ago and had not found any issues. It said it could have the carpet cleaned but the cost of this would be passed on to residents via their service charge. It would be best to clean the carpets after winter had passed (as bad weather was likely to make the carpets dirty). It said that a new estate supervisor would be taking over the cleaning of the block in a couple of weeks which would address any issues with the cleaning.
On 23 February 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. No cleaning had taken place since 17 February 2022.
2. The cleaners did not wear uniforms or badges, and this was not safe for residents.
3. The cleaners could not carry out their duties and were often creating more mess than was there previously.
4. She had not been able to get through to the landlord when she had tried to call. She said she had not heard from the landlord in relation to her emails and had not had a satisfactory response from it in relation to the concerns she had raised about the cleaning.
On 30 March 2022, the resident told the landlord that there were blood stains on walls after a fight which had happened a couple of weeks previously. She asked the landlord to ensure that these were cleaned and that urine stains in the block were also cleaned.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord met the resident at her block and carried out a site visit with her. On 22 April 2022, the landlord sent the resident an update in relation to issues discussed at the site visit. It said that:
1. A bio-clean had been carried out on floors two and three of her block to remove blood stains.
2. Cyclical redecoration works which included the cleaning of the flat roof next to the resident’s balcony were on hold until fire-investigation works had been completed.
3. Window cleaning took place on a quarterly basis and was due to happen in May 2022. This would include the glass balustrade on the internal staircase and external windows, but not windows that were behind balconies and some top floor windows which were within reach for residents to clean themselves.
4. It would ensure that access to a stairway where cigarette burns on the carpet had been found, would be secured, to prevent non-residents from coming into the block.
5. It had attached the cleaners’ sign-in sheets however others were not available due to being torn down or defaced.
6. The CCTV cameras were still working in the building. However, it had not had notification from the police that a fight had taken place and was not able to review hours of footage without knowing the time a fight had happened.
7. It had raised the resident’s concerns about fire-safety with its fire-safety officer.
8. It was obtaining a quote for carpet cleaning in the resident’s block but that a clean would be very expensive. Furthermore, it said it was not sure that a clean would be effective on the stains, so it was reluctant to take this forward at this stage.
9. It was considering extending the time the estate supervisor had to clean the resident’s block but said that this may require a consultation and may increase the cost of residents’ service charges.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said that it had spoken to staff and contractors and could not find any evidence of missed cleaning. It had provided her with photographs of the cleaning. It said that the role of estate supervisor had now been filled and the resident had confirmed she was happy with the standard of the cleaning. The estate supervisor wore identification and a uniform and drove a van with the landlord’s name on it. The landlord said it had looked into its communication with the resident and had not found any outstanding actions. It said its staff had passed all the resident’s concerns on to the relevant teams. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 25 May 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said that the cleaning had improved but was still an issue. She said that the cleaners’ sign-in sheets that the landlord had provided were not evidence that the cleaning had taken place. She said that communication with the landlord was still an issue.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 11 July 2022. It said that:
1. It apologised that the resident had not been able to speak to its staff directly when needed and that its responses were not coordinated internally to give her clear and precise information. It said it would learn from this and would improve coordination between teams. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the issues with its communication.
2. It was difficult to challenge the evidence provided by the contract cleaners due to lack of counter evidence, however it said it took on board the issues with the contract cleaners. It said it would put robust measures in place when employing contract cleaners in future.
3. 10% of the estate supervisor’s time was currently allocated to cleaning the resident’s block which was not enough to undertake the cleaning tasks needed. It said that from 11 July 2022, it would be increasing the estate supervisor’s time at the resident’s block to 30% of their working week. This would result in an increase in costs which would be reflected in the resident’s service charge from April 2023.
4. It had raised a repair to change the call point panel from plastic to glass. This would stop anyone flexing the plastic to gain unauthorised access to the resident’s building.
5. It would carry out a deep clean of the communal area and would freshen-up the paint work in the main communal lobby and would not pass the cost of this onto residents.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that:
1. The deep clean was completed over several days from 13 July 2022.
2. The lobby areas were freshened up on 21-22 July 2022.
3. The call point panel was replaced with glass in early August 2022.
4. There have been several bio-cleans of the communal areas between June 2022 and May 2023.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that cleaning of the resident’s block currently takes place twice a week, with a main clean being carried out on a Tuesday and a second visit happening on a Friday to check for any issues. It has said that cleaning is carried out according to work specifications rather than on number of hours spent at the block.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 28 October 2022. She has told this Service that the cleaning improved for a couple of months after the landlord’s stage two complaint response but then declined and has continued to be a concern since. She has said that the paint the landlord used to freshen up the lobby is not hard-wearing and marks easily.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the cleaning and maintaining of the communal areas of the resident’s block.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that it will inspect communal areas regularly to ensure that they are clean, well maintained, and clear of rubbish. The policy states that the frequency of these inspections will be determined on an individual basis, based on factors such as the level of complaints and the condition of communal facilities.
The landlord’s cleaning specifications include the weekly cleaning of the following: carpet floors, hard floors, entrance porches, all entrances, exits and external doors, stairways and stairwells, doormats, handrails and balustrades, walls and communal doors, edges, shelves, and skirting boards, equipment and furniture, laundry rooms, ceilings, lights, fixtures and fittings, sharps, bodily fluids, biological hazards, bins and internal/external bin stores, lifts, and rubbish removal.
The landlord’s complaint process has two stages. At stage one, a response will be provided within 20 working days. If an extension beyond 20 working days is needed, the landlord will agree this with residents where it is practical to do so. At stage two, a response will normally be no longer than seven working days. If more than seven working days is needed, this will be agreed in advance with the resident and a full explanation provided.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaints handling and landlords who are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme are expected to follow the Code.
The Code states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, 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 resident or group of residents’.

Standard of cleaning of communal areas

The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was a problem with the cleaning at the property but to assess how the landlord responded to such reports.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging to meet the resident to carry out an inspection of her block on 4 April 2022. This gave the resident the opportunity to show the landlord the aspects of the cleaning that she was not happy with. The landlord also acted appropriately in writing to the resident after the inspection to list all the issues highlighted during the visit and to set out its next steps.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the cleaners to provide regular photos of the cleaning. It also provided the resident with copies of the cleaners’ sign-in sheets. This demonstrates that the landlord took steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. This Service understands the resident’s concerns that the photos and sign-in sheets did not necessarily demonstrate that the cleaning had taken place. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on these as it could not be expected to inspect the cleaning each time it had taken place. There are no other steps the landlord could reasonably take to ensure that each cleaning visit had happened.
The resident did not specifically raise issues of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in her complaint, however ASB formed part of the wider context of the concerns the resident raised about the cleaning. In particular, blood on the walls and floors after a fight took place in the block, the smell of urine in certain parts of the communal areas and cigarette burns on the carpet.
There is evidence that the police were called to the fight that took place in the resident’s block, however the landlord acted appropriately in allowing the police to take the lead on this matter and would not have been able to take further action if the police did not do so. This is because the police have different powers to the landlord in relation to criminal matters. The landlord should co-operate with any police investigation, but it should ensure that its actions do not interfere with an ongoing police investigation. Therefore, the landlord was limited in the actions it could reasonably take whilst the police investigation was ongoing. After the police investigation concluded, the landlord would be expected to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to support it taking action against any tenants for ASB such as issuing a tenancy warning. The landlord should not take action against residents for ASB based on allegations alone without supporting evidence.
The landlord has been unable to identify who or what was urinating in certain areas. Without information as to what date or time the incidents were happening, the landlord would not have sufficient information to review its CCTV as it would not be practical to review many hours of footage in the hope of finding evidence of ASB. If a narrower timeframe could be provided for when incidents were likely to have taken place, it may be possible to review the footage to see if the perpetrator(s) could be identified. The landlord has told this Service that it is arranging for an additional CCTV camera to be installed in the building. It is important that the landlord provide an update to the resident as to when and where the camera will be installed.
The landlord has told this Service that over the past few years it has sent out letters to residents reminding them that they are responsible for their visitors and to be careful with security in and around the building. It is recommended that the landlord write to all residents encouraging them to report anything which may help it identify who or what is causing the smell of urine.
The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out bio-cleaning each time either the resident or its cleaners reported a biological hazard such as blood or vomit. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence to confirm that bio-cleans were carried out on multiple occasions in the resident’s block since she first complained about the standard of cleaning in 2021.
It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to do a deep clean of the resident’s block and to freshen-up the walls as an interim measure until such time as it could carry out the cyclical decoration of communal areas. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence to confirm that the deep clean and the freshening up of the lobby took place.
The landlord has told this Service that it has struggled to recruit a new estate supervisor. It has said that it is therefore using contract cleaners until such time as it is able to employ a permanent replacement. The landlord has acted reasonably by ensuring that the contract cleaners send it photographs to evidence the cleaning that has been carried out each time they visit.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy, set out above, states that it will inspect communal areas to ensure that they are clean. It states that one of the factors determining the frequency of these inspections will depend on the number of the complaints the landlord receives. Given that the resident has continued to report issues with the cleaning, it would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the resident’s block on a regular basis to satisfy itself that cleaning is taking place to the contracted standard. The landlord should let the resident know how frequently it plans to carry out inspections.

Communication

The landlord has acted appropriately in acknowledging that there was a lack of communication on its part. It has apologised that the resident was not able to contact staff directly when needed and she was not always given clear and precise information. It has offered her £100 compensation for this. This is in-line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that where service failure has been identified, compensation of between £50-£100 should be offered. The offer made by the landlord is proportionate to the time, trouble, and inconvenience, the lack of communication will have caused the resident, therefore it does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy, set out above, states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days. The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 23 February 2022. The landlord acted appropriately in informing the resident that it needed an extension and said it would send a response by 20 March 2022. This Service accepts that the landlord carried out a site visit and sent updates to the resident during this period. However, the landlord did not issue its stage one complaint response until 20 May 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 25 May 2022. The landlord has recorded this as the resident asking for information about how to escalate her complaint, however, the resident clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response and states that she maintains her complaint. As set out above, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that any expression of dissatisfaction must be treated as a complaint. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that at stage two, it will provide a response in no more than seven working days. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage two complaint until 11 July 2022 and this Service has not seen evidence that it informed the resident it would need more time to respond at this stage.
The fact that the landlord’s complaint responses exceeded its timescales at both stages of its procedure, meant that the resident was left waiting for a response to her concerns for longer than she should have been. As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where service failure has been identified that will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. In the opinion of this Service £100 compensation should be offered in view of the landlord’s complaint handling errors.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s lack of communication satisfactorily.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the decoration of the lobby area are out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about an increase in service charge, is out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs and alterations to the cladding of the building, are out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that this Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date.
The above amount is in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord for its lack of communication, which should be paid, if it has not been paid already.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Write to the resident to let her know how often it will inspect the communal areas in her block.
2. Provide an update to the resident about its plans to install additional CCTV in her block.
3. Send letters to residents to encourage them to report anything which may help the landlord identify who or what is causing the smell of urine.