Sanctuary Housing Association (202432443)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. The landlord manages the block.The residentis unhappy with the standard and frequency of the cleaning the landlord arranges for the communal areas. He believes the standard is too low for the level of service charge.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled communal cleaning in the block.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find there has been:
   1. No maladministration in how the landlord handled communal cleaning in the block.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s records show its cleaners attended to clean the communal areas regularly. It also completed its own inspections to assess the standard of the cleaning both before and after the complaint, and concluded the cleaning met the required standards. Any disagreement about the standard of the cleaning and the associated service charges would be a dispute as to the reasonableness of the charge for the service provided, which is outside of our remit.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

7. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident raised a number of additional concerns when referring his complaint to us, including that the communal areas have deteriorated, and a lack of responses from the landlord. As these were not part of the original complaint, we cannot consider them as part of this investigation. We can only consider events prior to the stage 2 response on 24 November 2024.
8. The resident said the level of service charges did not reflect the level of the cleaning, and the landlord should reduce or review the charges. Our scheme rules say we may not consider complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. So we cannot consider this part of the resident’s complaint. If he wishes to dispute the reasonableness of the charges, that would be for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to determine.

Assessment

9. It’s common ground that the landlord is required to clean the communal areas under the terms of the resident’s lease. The lease does not specify any level or frequency of cleaning, and the landlord does not have any policy which sets out a required frequency or standard of cleaning for its properties.
10. The landlord has confirmed that its cleaners aim to clean communal areas twice a week, but as a minimum will clean weekly. It has a list of cleaning tasks for its cleaners to complete, and it inspects the standard of the cleaning as part of a regular inspection of the building. This is in line with standard industry practice.
11. The resident said he raised a number of concerns about the communal cleaning prior to his complaint. We have seen no evidence which shows this. In the absence of that evidence, we can only investigate on the basis that the complaint was the first time the resident raised concerns about the cleaning.
12. When the resident made his complaint on 20 October 2024, he said there had been no cleaning for several weeks. He said a bag was left in the lobby, the lifts were not cleaned, and the stairwells smelled of urine.
13. The landlord’s records show the cleaners did attend in the weeks leading up to the resident’s complaint. The cleaners completed a cleaning attendance sheet, which the landlord displays in the building. The landlord also completes its own inspections of the building. This includes the cleaning. Its records show that, prior to the complaint, it inspected on 15 January 2024, 19 February 2024, 13 June 2024, 16 September 2024, and 3 October 2024. On each occasion it deemed the condition of the block (including the cleaning) to be either ‘satisfactory’ or ‘good’.
14. When it received the complaint, the landlord reviewed its records and arranged another inspection to check if some areas had been missed. This was reasonable and resolution-focused. The estates supervisor concluded that, based on that inspection, the cleaning met the required standards. The landlord explained this to the resident in its complaint response, which was reasonable.
15. As part of his escalation request, the resident raised specific issues such as dust on the skirting boards, human waste near the main gate to the building, a urine smell on the ground floor, and rubbish in the bike store and the bin store. Most of these reports were made for the first time as part of the escalation request, so did not form part of the original complaint.
16. The landlord explained that dust and rubbish can appear between cleans given the size of the block, and it had raised a works order to clear human waste (which requires specialist contractors, and is not part of its communal cleaning). The landlord therefore appropriately used the complaints process to seek to resolve the further issues raised in the escalation request.
17. We recognise there are times between cleans when the communal areas will not be clean, and this can be unpleasant for residents. But the evidence we have seen demonstrates that the cleaners did attend to complete the communal cleaning. The landlord also took reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure the service was both provided and up to its expected standard by completing its own inspections. Any disagreement about the standard of the cleaning and the associated service charges would be a dispute as to the reasonableness of the charge for the service provided, which is outside of our remit. We therefore find no maladministration in how the landlord handled the communal cleaning in the block.

18. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints process match those set out in the Code.
19. The resident made a complaint on 20 October 2024, and escalated his complaint on 7 November 2024. The landlord appropriately investigated the complaint, and responded within the relevant timescales at all stages. We therefore find no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord has kept a number of records related to the communal cleaning. But it would benefit from maintaining centralised records to reduce the risk of any inspection records or cleaning attendance notes being lost, and to help it monitor the communal cleaning.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication was reasonable and appropriate in this case.