Stockport Homes Limited (202213837)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213837

Stockport Homes Limited

6 December 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 1st floor one bedroom flat within a low-rise block.
  2. The cleaning of the property is undertaken by contractors on behalf of the landlord. This work is levied by a variable service charge paid by residents.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2020 to raise a complaint about his concerns with the standard of the cleaning of the communal areas in the block. The resident was also unhappy with the conduct of a manager during the phone call.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 October 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it felt the member of staff dealing with the call had acted appropriately in terminating the call. It also said it was satisfied with the cleaning standard at the block. It had undertaken a visit to the block, as well as inspecting the attendance reports and records of its operative. It said it was happy that the site had been cleaned to a good standard.
  5. The resident visited the landlord’s offices to discuss his concerns and there was various contact between him and the landlord until December 2020. The landlord called the resident to discuss his concerns but was unable to get through to him. The resident got in contact about these issues again on 29 October 2021, confirming these remained outstanding. Discussions about the cleaning continued between the resident and the landlord until the resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 following a meeting between them on 7 June 2022.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2022. It stated that following a visit on 27 May 2022, it was apparent ‘that the dirt and grime present on the flooring was evidence that the floors had not been getting cleaned properly, nor to the expected standards, on a regular basis’. The landlord listed several steps it would take to ensure the standards improved. These included reviewing the cleaning products, installing a new caretaker in the block, and displaying the caretaker’s tasks in the communal areas to highlight these to residents. It also offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him plus £100 compensation for its delay in escalating his complaint to stage 2. 
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 September 2022 to refer his complaint. He felt he had not been receiving the services he was charged for as part of his service charge. He felt the communal areas remained dirty and not up-to-standard. To resolve his complaint, he wanted to be refunded for the charges for the last six years.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. This investigation is limited to the matters dealt with in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2022 and the internal complaints process leading up to this. Any later complaints made to the landlord, even regarding similar concerns, have not been considered as part of this investigation.
  2. Complaints that relate to the level or reasonableness of service charges are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Any issues relating to these matters should be directed to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident can find out more information about this process through the Leasehold Advisory Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning

  1. The resident’s block is cleaned once a week. All visits are recorded via a mobile site which both the caretaking supervisor and housing officer had access to. This record tracked of all the individual tasks that caretakers undertook. The landlord also states that it periodically undertakes visits to inspect the block.
  2. To investigate the resident’s concerns, the landlord initially undertook a visit on 16 October 2020 and reviewed its estate inspection reports. Having reviewed this evidence, the landlord considered that the communal cleaning was of a “good standard”. Throughout the complaint period, the landlord undertook several additional visits to the property as well as meeting the resident to discuss his concerns. It also reviewed its previous records to ensure that the tasks caretakers were meant to undertake had been completed. From the evidence available, it appears these actions were fair from the landlord and demonstrate that it intended to investigate the resident’s reports by liaising him and checking the cleaning standards itself.
  3. Prior to visiting the resident for its stage 2 meeting, the landlord’s caretaker had undertaken an enhanced clean to remove ingrained discolouration from the flooring. This took place in the resident’s block but not every block on the estate. The resident took the landlord to alternative blocks to demonstrate the poor-quality standard of communal cleaning. The landlord agreed upon visiting the other block that the standard was lower than expected.
  4. The landlord also highlighted the steps it would be taking to improve the service following its visit. It installed a new caretaker in the block. It posted a list of the caretaker’s duties publicly so all residents would be informed of the expected role its caretakers performed. It also undertook a review of the cleaning equipment and products used. Moving forward, it also agreed to undertake additional visits to the site.
  5. The landlord, following its visit, agreed with the resident that it felt there was evidence that the floors had not been getting cleaned properly, or to the expected standard. For this, it provided the resident with £250 for the distress and inconvenience this had caused, including his efforts to chase a resolution. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which recommends this amount for ‘instances of service failure that result in a significant and on-going impact on the complainant’. This level of compensation was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been failings that adversely affected a resident and represented an offer of reasonable redress from the landlord.
  6. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord has fairly communicated with the resident. It undertook several visits as he requested and sent various pieces of communication which clearly set out its position. There were several meetings that took place whilst this matter was ongoing. There is no detailed evidence about the content of communications between the resident and landlord, but the level of communication was reasonable and there is nothing to indicate that the landlord treated the resident unfairly.
  7. At stage 1, the landlord referenced a call which had originally caused the complaint. In this, the landlord ended the call after the resident requested sensitive information that it said it would not provide. There is no evidence the landlord treated the resident unfairly in not providing this information.
  8. After the conclusion of the complaints process, the resident has continued to raise concerns about the standard of cleaning. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to work with the resident to address any concerns he may have.
  9. If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £250 compensation for its failure to ensure the communal cleaning was done to the correct standard, it should reoffer this compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has two stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2, it says it will respond to the complaint 20 days after the escalation.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord provided its complaint response within 10 working days which represented good practice. Its response was fair in both content and tone.
  3. There was a significant period between the landlord’s stage 1 response and its escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as there was a 10-month gap between the resident’s contacts about his concerns. The landlord said that due to this period being affected by Covid-19 restrictions, it allowed this to remain part of the same complaint. This represented good practice by the landlord.
  4. The landlord however missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint. It corresponded with the resident, as well as undertaking visits, between October 2021 and June 2022 when it eventually escalated the matter to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord eventually did this after a visit to the resident on 7 June 2022. This meeting was originally meant to take place on 14 April 2022. Given the nature of the correspondence and visits with the resident, the landlord missed opportunities to escalate this complaint.
  5. The landlord however acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response. It provided the resident with £100 compensation for its failing. Given the length of the delays and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident, this was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was provided within the timescales specified by its policy. It clearly outlined the steps the landlord intended to take moving forward and provided an apology for its failings. This response was fair in both content and tone.
  7. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord interacted with the resident fairly. It arranged several visits to inspect the cleaning standards and clearly explained its position.
  8. If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £100 compensation, it should reoffer this to him.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £350 awarded in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to check what his current communal cleaning concerns are and write to him within two weeks of the discussion to confirm how it intends to resolve these.