We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202300625)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300625

LiveWest Homes Limited

16 December 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communal cleaning.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy.
  2. There is a communal hall adjacent to the resident’s property which is available for use by residents and members of the community. At the time of this complaint, the resident was the chairman of a social club which met in the hall. At the time of investigation, he no longer holds this role.
  3. The cleaning of the communal hall is paid for through the residents’ service charges.
  4. The complaint is longstanding and is related to poor standards of cleaning in the communal hall. The resident stated that the hall had not been consistently or fully cleaned since the landlord appointed a contractor to clean it. The resident also complained that the landlord had not kept to specific agreements, such as asking the cleaner to take photographs of each clean.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 March 2023 in which he referenced historic complaints and said:
    1. The landlord had refused to look at photographs he had provided showing poor cleaning.
    2. The landlord had “ordered” him not to collect any further evidence.
    3. The landlord had asked the cleaner to take photographs following each clean, which the resident had requested but had not been given.
    4. The cleaner had retrospectively completed the cleaning log in the hall, and he queried why this was the case.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2023 and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
    1. It apologised for the delay to its complaint response and offered £100 compensation.
    2. Its staff had been responsive when the resident had contacted it with concerns. This included undertaking a site visit.
    3. It acknowledged that some photographs were missing for the first half of February 2023; however, it was not under any obligation to provide these to the resident as this was outside of its contractual arrangements with the cleaner.
    4. It upheld that there was a delay in responding to an email requesting information and accepted that improvements to communication were required. It offered a further £50 compensation for this.
    5. It would continue to monitor the standards of cleaning in the hall.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2023 because:
    1. The cleaner had stated that she was unable to take photographs of cleaning in the hall due to it being occupied; however, the resident disputed this.
    2. Two cleaning dates were added to the hall cleaning log retrospectively and this had not been addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023 in which it said:
    1. It had previously addressed the resident’s concerns about accepting evidence, photographs of the cleaning undertaken, and poor communications in its stage 1 response.
    2. It considered that the cleaning was up to standard, and it was monitoring this on an ongoing basis.
    3. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the cleaning log being completed retrospectively and advised that it had addressed this with the cleaner.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 July 2023. He advised that he wanted the landlord to either change the contracted cleaning company or for an improvement to be made to the quality of cleaning provided.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the matter occurring, normally within 12 months.
  2. The resident has advised that he has reported issues with the standard of cleaning in the hall over several years prior to the formal complaint, beginning in April 2019. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s actions in the 12-month period prior to his formal complaint.

Communal cleaning

  1. The communal hall is located adjacent to the resident’s property and nearby to several other properties owned by the landlord. The hall is utilised by the landlord’s residents, other nearby residents and members of the community. The hall comprises a large meeting room, smaller rooms, toilets, and a kitchen area.
  2. The hall is cleaned by a contractor appointed by the landlord and paid for through the resident’s service charge. In the financial year 2022-23, the resident was charged £44.10 for communal cleaning. In the 2023-24 financial year, the charge increased to £47.88. 
  3. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says that it will visit and inspect communal areas regularly. The exact frequency of this is determined by the landlord on an individual basis. These visits are to identify improvements. The policy also says that each scheme will have a cleaning specification which shows the standards and frequency of work. The evidence provided included this specification and shows that this was provided to the resident.
  4. The cleaning specification for the communal hall included all basic cleaning such as sweeping, mopping, dusting and wiping surfaces, and picking up litter. These tasks are shown on the schedule as weekly tasks. Some other tasks are completed monthly or annually, such as clearing debris and power washing in the outside areas.
  5. In response to the resident’s concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord took several actions including a site visit and providing the resident with up-to-date cleaning schedules. This was reasonable and in line with its policy requirements. 
  6. The landlord’s cleaning schedule and policy did not require the cleaner to take photographs following the cleaning. Its willingness to do this was beyond its contract or legal requirements. The evidence shows that the landlord and the cleaning contractor used these photographs to monitor the quality of cleaning, and this was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
  7. While the resident requested copies of the photographs taken by the cleaner, there was no policy or contract requirement on the landlord to share these with the resident. The landlord communicated this in a timely way to the resident as part of its complaint responses and general correspondence.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that it had been delayed in issuing its stage 1 complaint response and responding to communication from the resident. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delayed complaint response and a further £50 compensation for the delays in communication. This was reasonable and proportionate redress for these failings.
  9. During the complaint, the resident also suggested that the social club could assume responsibility for the cleaning of the hall, as had been done previously. The landlord said it would consider this request and invited the social club to submit its proposal during the next tender cycle. Despite this request being received from the resident on behalf of a third party (the social club) it was positive to note that the landlord considered this request as part of its holistic complaint response. It is unclear whether the social club subsequently submitted a proposal for consideration.
  10. Within the complaint correspondence, the resident suggested that the landlord should canvass opinions on the standards of cleaning from other residents and users of the hall. The landlord’s records indicate that it did this during a resident’s meeting and nobody other than the resident raised any concerns. The landlord’s records show that it did not receive any formal complaints from other residents related to this matter. The resident disputes this account. The landlord could have considered alternative means to obtain feedback from residents, such as a survey, and this was a missed opportunity to obtain comments and improve its services further.
  11. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord acted in a reasonable and timely way in response to the resident’s concerns about the standards of cleaning. In particular, having acknowledged that the cleaning log was being completed retrospectively, it took steps to address these concerns directly with the cleaning contractor and put steps in place to monitor this on an ongoing basis. Where the landlord identified delays in its complaint response and communication it apologised for this and paid reasonable compensation to address this.
  12. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communal cleaning satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Continue to monitor the quality and frequency of communal cleaning in line with its contract requirements.
    2. Continue to liaise with residents about suggestions or concerns related to the standards of communal cleaning.
    3. Pay the resident the compensation offered it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, if it has not already done so.