Yorkshire Housing Limited (202201152)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201152

Yorkshire Housing Limited

23 March 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the caretaking service provided by the landlord in return for a service charge.
2. The landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

In his communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the service charge collected by the landlord in return for the estate services, which he believes were not supplied satisfactorily. The resident has regularly raised concern about the amount charged and has asked that this be refunded. It should be noted that, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is not within the remit of this Service to investigate complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges. Complaints that relate to these matters are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
If the resident remains concerned regarding the reasonableness of the service charges, he may refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal. Further details can be found on its website https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber. As such, this report will assess whether the landlord’s communication and response to the resident’s concerns about the services provided was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint raised by the resident to his landlord regarding his queries about the service charges collected by the landlord for estate services and grounds maintenance and the standard of the estate services being provided by the landlord. The Ombudsman issued a determination to the landlord in December 2021 under reference 202016536 regarding this complaint and found service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns.
As part of the determination, the landlord was ordered to carry out a management review of its record keeping practices to ensure that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate what grounds maintenance and caretaking services are provided to residents in return for service charges, including services provided by contractors. The landlord complied with this order on 5 January 2022. It found that its inspections for grounds maintenance were digital which made it quick and easy to check that a service had been provided. It added that it needed to digitise its caretaking service checks and said that it aimed to build an app for this moving forward.
In accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the historic issues relating to the resident’s complaint raised in October 2020 as part of complaint reference 202016536. Details of this case will be used in this report for background information only.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a first floor flat within a communal block. The resident pays a service charge for estate services, which includes litter picking, cleaning of bin storage areas and taking out household waste and recycling bins for collection and returning them to the bin store area.

Summary of events

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 November 2021 as he was dissatisfied that he paid a service charge for estate services which were not carried out. He noted that the service charge increased for 2021/22 but he did not feel he should need to pay this as he did not believe these services were being carried out weekly. He raised concern that:
1. Household waste had been left in the car park for over a week.
2. A mattress had been left at the bottom of the communal stairs by an employee of the landlord who had been clearing another flat within the block. This was the case until another tenant moved the mattress to the recycling bin area.
3. The waste household rubbish bins and recycling bins had been left outside of the estate gates for a week at a time and were not returned to the bin store area.
4. Litter picking was not taking place on a weekly basis and each week there was household waste around the car park after the bins were taken out.
5. The service provided had not improved since the Ombudsman’s previous determination.
The Ombudsman sent its decision regarding case reference 202016536 to the landlord on 1 December 2021.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 December 2021 and detailed the following:
1. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It confirmed that household waste should not be left in the car park but should be placed in the general waste and recycling area, or a collection should be arranged. It advised that waste in the car park should be reported. It said that it would monitor this alongside its grounds maintenance team and liaise with tenants to reiterate the process for household waste disposal.
3. It advised that it would investigate the issue of a mattress being left by the communal stairs with the specific contractor. It understood that there had been a misunderstanding about the collection timing and had reminded the contractor to ensure items were left in the recycling area for collection.
4. It apologised that the household and recycling bins were left outside of the gates for a week at a time. It acknowledged that this was not good service. It said it had discussed the issue with the caretaker who said that this happened on occasion. It confirmed that with immediate effect, a caretaker would attend on the same day, or the day after the bin collection to put the bins back. It confirmed it would monitor this moving forward.
5. It advised that litter picking happened on a weekly basis despite the perception that this was not being done. It acknowledged that litter blew from the household waste bins when these were left out for collection. It had discussed the matter with the caretaker who said that they picked litter when they took the bins out for collection but did not always have the time to do so when bins were returned.
6. The caretaker had suggested that they spent a full day on site to address any issues. This was agreed to take place on a Wednesday from January 2022. It confirmed that the caretaker would also litter-pick when the bins were returned to the bin area.
7. It confirmed that it would monitor the caretaking services to ensure that the actions it agreed to were carried out. It would continue to seek weekly reports with before and after photos of the estate, as well as continue to carry out a monthly site audit to monitor and resolve issues.
8. It confirmed that it had recently received the Ombudsman’s previous determination and would act accordingly.
The landlord’s internal records show that the landlord completed a site audit inspection on 22 December 2021. It found no issues or concerns. The site was reported to be clean and tidy. The bins had been put out and the bin store area had been swept.
The landlord’s internal records show that a site inspection was carried out on 5 January 2022. The evidence shows that no issues were found on inspection; the caretaker was completing a litter-pick and the bins had been taken out for collection.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 12 January 2022 as he remained dissatisfied. He explained the following:
1. The household waste was left in the car park for a week by an employee of the landlord, not a tenant. The waste was overflowing from the household bins which had not been put out for collection the previous week.
2. The mattress left at the bottom of the stairs was left by an employee of the landlord who was clearing another flat on the estate. They had taken all other furniture items but left the mattress. If they had taken the mattress, there would not have been a collection mix-up.
3. He advised that the bins were being left out if they were taken out for collection. The recycling bins had only been taken out twice since 1 December 2021 and were left out for days. The litter picking was also not taking place on a weekly basis and had only taken place twice since 1 December 2021.
4. He was dissatisfied that nothing had changed since the Ombudsman’s previous determination and did not believe that the estate services were being carried out weekly as advised.
5. He expressed dissatisfaction that his service charge increased yearly despite the service not being provided satisfactorily since the full-time caretaker was removed a few years prior. He was also dissatisfied that he paid a weekly service charge for a service he was not receiving.
The landlord’s records show that a site cleaning audit inspection was carried out on 26 January 2022. A job was raised on this date for some items left in the bin store area which included boxes and a fan.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 8 February 2022 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident felt its stage one complaint response was an inaccurate representation of what happened regarding dumped items. It apologised if it had not captured the events accurately and advised that it was not its intention to blame tenants, but to highlight what should happen if rubbish was left on the site.
2. It had found that the actions agreed in its stage one complaint response had been carried out and would continue to be carried out as part of the caretaking service, including:
  1. Bins being put out on a weekly basis as agreed and brought in on the same day or the day after the bin collection.
  2. A litter pick being carried out weekly on a Wednesday as well as when bins were put out or put back.
3. It advised that it had trackers in its caretaking vans which showed it where its caretakers had been and for how long. It used this alongside a monthly site audit to monitor the work carried out by its caretakers. It had reviewed its van tracking data and said this confirmed that the caretakers had attended the estate on the dates agreed since the resident had raised his complaint in December 2021.
4. It had also carried out site audits on 22 December 2021 and 26 January 2022 with no corrective action found to be necessary on each occasion.
5. It confirmed that monitoring and site audits would carry on as it continued to monitor the services provided to make sure that these were carried out in line with what had been agreed, and what tenants were paying for through their service charge. It confirmed that the resident should continue to report estate issues so that they could be resolved.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 February 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with its response. He advised that he did not feel that having trackers on caretaking vans was evidence that estate services were being carried out. He maintained his position that the only service carried out weekly was the bins being taken out for collection.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He felt that the landlord had not dealt with the complaint properly and had attempted to blame tenants for rubbish and household waste that had been left on the estate. He wanted the landlord to provide evidence that the estate services were being carried out on a weekly basis and hold its employees accountable. He felt he was being charged for a service which was not being provided and believed that the landlord should refund tenants for the period in which estate services were not being caried out. The resident also advised that the landlord had done nothing to improve the situation on the estate and this had now attracted rats and vermin.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the caretaking service provided by the landlord in return for a service charge.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord shall provide services in connection with the property set out in an attached schedule for which the resident shall pay a service charge. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of a service charge schedule.
The landlord’s estate caretaking specification states that caretakers are responsible for patrolling communal areas focussing on the safety, security and cleanliness of the building. Among other duties, the caretaker should ensure that the site is free from litter and bulky items and the communal bin area is left tidy and disinfected on each visit. The landlord has confirmed that this takes place on a weekly basis and the caretaker would be responsible for taking the household waste bins and recycling bins out for collection and returning them to the bin store area each week.
Where a resident raises concerns about the quality of a service provided by the landlord, the landlord would be responsible for investigating the resident’s concerns. This may involve discussing the matter with the staff members responsible for the service, reviewing its records to evaluate whether the service was being carried out to the expected standard and taking steps to resolve any identified failings. The landlord would also be responsible for ensuring that it had processes in place to ensure that its service standards were being met through accurate monitoring of its caretaking service and record keeping.
The resident initially raised concern that household waste had been left in the car park for over a week. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns and confirming that it did not expect household waste to be left in the car park but to be placed in the bin store area or for a collection to be arranged.
It is noted that there was some confusion regarding the resident’s reports of household waste being left in the communal area for a week and the resident felt that the landlord had blamed tenants rather than accounting for the actions of its staff, who he later explained had not taken the household bins out for collection the previous week. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and apologising that it had not accurately reflected what had happened in its stage one complaint response to the resident which was reasonable in the circumstances. It was ultimately reasonable for the landlord to also advise that it would remind its tenants of their responsibilities regarding waste in an attempt to reduce the amount of litter and “dumped” waste alongside monitoring the caretaking service provided.
In relation to the resident’s reports of a mattress left in the communal area by an employee who had been clearing another flat, the landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it would investigate this matter and had reminded the contractor to ensure items were left in the recycling area for collection. This was reasonable in an attempt to prevent the same circumstances reoccurring in the future. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a further explanation to the resident in relation to the misunderstanding about the “collection timing” in order to respond to the complaint more fully, however, this did not have a significant outcome on the overall complaint as the mattress had since been disposed of correctly.
The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s complaint about the weekly services by discussing his concerns with its caretaker, who was responsible for carrying out the estate services. The caretaker acknowledged that bins were not always returned to the bin store area when they were put out for collection and that while they completed a litter pick when the bins were taken out, they did not always have time to complete this when the bins were returned.
The landlord took reasonable steps to make changes to enable the caretaker to complete the tasks expected in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord agreed, within its stage one complaint response on 17 December 2021, that the bins would be taken out for collection on a weekly basis and returned to the bin store area on the same day or the day after with immediate effect. It acknowledged that the caretaker had advised that they did not always have the time to complete every task and it took steps to change the rota so that they could spend a full day on site each Wednesday from January 2022. It also confirmed that they would complete a litter pick when the bins were taken out as well as when they were returned. The landlord took steps to monitor the work of the caretaker in response to the resident’s concerns through its monthly site inspection and an additional ad-hoc inspection.
It is noted that the resident continued to dispute that the agreed actions were taking place on a weekly basis. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the standard of a service provided, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the service had been provided to a satisfactory standard and tasks were being carried out as agreed.
The landlord has provided this Service with evidence that it had completed site inspections on 22 December 2021, 5 January 2022 and 26 January 2022 respectively in order to monitor the site and resolve any immediate issues. The landlord’s records note that the site was in a reasonable condition on each visit and no immediate issues were raised other than a number of bulky items left in the communal bin store on 26 January 2022. The caretaker was also seen to have taken the bins out for collection and was litter picking at the time of the visit on 5 January 2022.
While the inspections suggest that the estate services were being carried out by the caretaker given that no issues arose on each visit, this evidence does not confirm that the litter picking, cleaning and bin management was being carried out on a weekly basis. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to complete an additional inspection on 5 January 2022 outside of its monthly audit inspection in an attempt to monitor the standard of the service being provided in response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has also provided evidence of its van tracking data which shows that the caretaker attended the site each Wednesday since 5 January 2022 as agreed, alongside visits to the site on other days. It should be noted that while the van tracking data confirms that the caretaker attended the site weekly, this would not be evidence in and of itself that the caretaking tasks such as litter picking were being carried out on each visit.
In addition, within its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that the litter picking was being completed on a weekly basis and the bins had been taken out and returned to the bin store as agreed since its stage one complaint response. While the landlord has provided evidence of its inspections and van tracking data, it has not provided this Service with details of the evidence it relied upon to confirm that the agreed actions had been completed each week. It had previously advised within its stage one complaint response that it would seek weekly reports with before and after photos of the estate on each visit, however, it has not provided evidence to this Service to confirm that this was completed.
It is noted that cleaning standards can be subjective, and while litter picking may be carried out on one day, this may not mean that the site remains litter free throughout the week. In addition, the landlord would rely on residents to report any issues within the estate alongside its caretaking service as it would not be obliged to remain on site at all times. It can be reasonable for a landlord to rely on its staff, who say that tasks have been completed. However, it should also have measures in place, such as a log of tasks completed on each visit, signed by its caretaker, or before and after photos where appropriate for audit purposes so that it is able to evidence the agreed actions where there is a dispute.
It is noted that within its communication to this Service that the landlord has advised that it aimed to digitise the monitoring of its caretaking service through the use of an app, which was still in development as of 8 February 2023. While an app would be a reasonable development to ensure that the caretaking service was monitored effectively, the landlord would be responsible for ensuring that its services were effectively monitored in the interim, given that the development of an app can take time and was not yet available.
In summary, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm that the estate services were being monitored effectively and has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm that the agreed actions were taking place on a weekly basis as detailed within its stage. As such, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is ordered to review its record-keeping practices to ensure that the weekly estate services are effectively monitored so that it is able to evidence that these are being carried out as agreed. Actions may include obtaining before and after photos of the site on each visit or implementing a checklist to be signed by the caretaker in order to log the tasks completed on each visit. The landlord should respond to this Service within four weeks to confirm and provide evidence of the actions it had taken in response to this order.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, it should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within ten working days of receipt. If the resident is still dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days of receipt.
In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 29 November 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 December 2021, which was slightly outside of its policy timescales by four working days. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 12 January 2022. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 February 2022, which was within its policy timescales.
The delay of four working days at stage one of the complaint process was unlikely to have a significant impact on the resident, who had been informed of the target response date of 17 December 2021. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have acknowledged the slight delay and apologised to the resident for the additional time and trouble needed in pursuing his complaint given its initial refusal to investigate before seeking advice from this Service on 3 December 2021.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. In line with the Code, the landlord would be expected to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
In this case, the resident raised specific concerns related to the service charge, including why he needed to pay this given his concern that the estate services were not being provided satisfactorily. While the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the standard of the caretaking service and took steps to address his concerns, it acknowledged that the bins were not always returned to the bin store and that the litter picking did not always take place on each visit. As such, it would have been appropriate for it to have explained its position regarding the service charge, and why this was still applicable and payable despite the acknowledged failings in its service standard.
This amounts to a service failure by the landlord in that it did not provide a satisfactory response to each aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident, whose concerns remained partially unaddressed. As such, the landlord is to write to the resident and respond to his concerns related to his service charge for estate services. A copy of this should also be provided to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the caretaking service provided by the landlord in return for a service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by addressing the resident’s specific concerns in relation to the caretaking service, however, failed to provide evidence to this Service to confirm that the services were being carried out on a weekly basis. As such, it has not provided an adequate response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the service charge he paid in relation to the estate services provided by the landlord.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £100, in recognition of the time and trouble he spent pursuing his concerns and the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to address his concerns related to the service charge he paid for estate services.
2. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure that the weekly estate services are effectively monitored so that it can evidence that these are being carried out on a weekly basis as agreed when asked.
3. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report and offer an explanation as to why the service charge is still applicable and payable.
4. The landlord should respond to this Service within four weeks to provide evidence of the actions it had taken in response to these orders.