Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (202202740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202740

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

21 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request for a refund of service charges for communal cleaning services.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a maisonette in a block of similar properties. The resident pays the landlord a service charge. Part of that charge is for the weekly cleaning of the communal areas of the block.
3. On 21 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder advising her about her service charge for the period 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021. This included a caretaking/cleaning charge of £169.32. On reviewing this, on 2 March 2022, the leaseholder sent a complaint to the landlord in which she raised concerns about the infrequency of communal cleaning during this period. She stated that the block had only been cleaned four times that she could recall. This was on 3 December 2020, 17 December 2020, 15 January 2021, and 16 September 2021. She acknowledged that COVID-19 would have had an impact but was not happy to pay for work which had not been done.
4. After investigating the leaseholder’s complaint on 17 March 2022, the landlord gave its stage one complaint. It explained that it had discussed the issues raised with the cleaning team and there was no reason to believe that the blocks were not cleaned regularly. It therefore concluded that the leaseholder would need to pay the service charge as stated in its letter. The landlord responded to a further assertion that the block had not been cleaned since January 2022, confirming that a clean had taken place on 9 March 2022. It explained that moving forward nonetheless, monitoring sheets would be put in all blocks and would be visible to all residents.
5. On 30 March 2022, the leaseholder requested an escalation of her complaint to stage two. She requested that the landlord consider and evidence the dates cleaning took place between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2021, and that it consider her refund request.
6. The landlord offered the resident its final response on 28 April 2022. It explained that upon reviewing the evidence, it was satisfied that the charges for the cleaning services were appropriate and reasonable. The landlord was satisfied that cleaning was taking place in each block on a three-weekly cycle across the site. It was also satisfied that the costs for the charging period were appropriate.
7. The leaseholder remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and wants a partial refund of her caretaking/cleaning charge from the landlord, in the sum of £156.38.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request for a refund of service charges for communal cleaning services.

8. This investigation has focused on the disputed cleaning services and the landlord’s response to this dispute for the period 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021.
9. Where obligations are concerned, the leaseholder agreement is silent on how the landlord will manage the cleaning and maintenance of the communal space. Contrary to good practice, it also does not appear that the landlord held a service level agreement to set out the expected frequency of cleans or manage resident expectations.
10. Given that the resident’s block was included on a weekly cleaning schedule, and that she was being charged a weekly cost, nonetheless, the Ombudsman has inferred that this should have been taking place on a weekly basis. The landlord’s own correspondence suggested that the frequency of cleaning differed based on the need, but for each individual block, a clean would take place at least once every three weeks.
11. On this basis, upon receiving the resident’s accusation that the service had been almost non-existent (occurring on only four occasions), the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have investigated how frequently this took place, and to have shared any evidence found. The landlord should have offered the resident a response based on its findings, and provided the resident with reasonable justification on whether or not it would reimburse the resident.
12. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did do this in part by approaching its cleaning team to ascertain what had historically taken place. It also consulted its Housing Manager who was satisfied that the service charge was warranted.
13. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, in the absence of records to demonstrate that frequent cleans took place, the landlord could not arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. While it found “no reason to believe that the blocks were not cleaned regularly”, this was not sufficient to conclude that a frequent and reasonable service was offered.
14. As well as failing to provide the resident with records which evidenced the alleged cleaning service that the landlord suggested it provided, it has also failed to provide this Service with such evidence. The Ombudsman is therefore not satisfied that the landlord adopted a fair approach in response to the resident’s concerns.
15. With this said, this Service has noted that since issuing its final response and on commencement of our investigation, the landlord has recognised for itself that there is no evidence that consistent cleans had taken place (for the period in question). It confirmed that while there existed a weekly resource, there were no records to support that this resource had been allocated. The landlord also noted that a cleaning services quality audit sheet had been put together in February 2020, but there was no evidence that this had been completed for the audits. It has therefore informed this Service that a number of operational changes will be made (including a cleaning schedule for each block, a Service Level Standard, the use of inspection sheets, and monthly timesheets from the cleaners).
16. The landlord also accepted that the resident did have a reasonable expectation that the block would receive a clean once a week. It therefore advised this Service that it would be upholding the resident’s complaint, reimbursing the amount of £169.42 and additionally offering £150 compensation for its failure to fully investigate the complaint. This exceeds what the resident advised this Service she was seeking.
17. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer is satisfactory in resolving the resident’s complaint and fairly recognises its oversight. The Ombudsman has subsequently encouraged the landlord below to make this award / reimbursement to the resident. The Ombudsman has still determined that there was a service failure, however, as it was not until six months after the landlord’s final response (and once this Service accepted the complaint for investigation) that the landlord sought to put things right. The resident was subsequently inconvenienced and avoidably further delayed in resolving her complaint.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request for a refund of service charges for communal cleaning services.

Orders

19. If the landlord has not done so already, it should provide the resident with a reimbursement of £169.42 and offer £150 compensation as it advised this Service it would.
20. The landlord should also write to the resident to confirm the operational changes it has made to its cleaning service and to share a copy of the service level agreement (or service level standard).
21. The landlord should offer the resident a further £50 for the time and trouble in bringing her complaint to this Service for resolution.
22. The landlord should ensure that it complies with the above orders, and provide this Service with proof of compliance, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should ensure that moving forward, it has a robust record keeping system in place. This Service expects landlord’s to be able to evidence any steps they may have taken, should a complaint be brought to this Service.