Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Thrive Homes Limited (202102346)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102346

Thrive Homes Limited

8 November 2021


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 refers to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the location of the bin storage area, the standard of cleaning in the communal areas at his property and consequent request for a refund of his service charge.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The landlord employs a contracted cleaning company to carry out fortnightly cleans of the communal areas in the block.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 September 2020 and reported various concerns about the cleaning in the communal areas. He noted that the balcony areas had not been cleaned and the bin storage areas were littered with items such as toilet seats. He added that the carpeting in the block had not been cleaned and this had been outstanding for over a year. He asked how often the bin areas should be cleaned and how often paintwork in the building should be cleaned. He asked the landlord to arrange a date for someone to meet at the property to view the current standards of cleaning and expressed dissatisfaction that he had raised these issues previously, but nothing had been done. 
  3. The landlord responded on 18 September 2020 and explained that it would raise the resident’s concerns with its cleaning contractor. It confirmed that the cleaning was currently carried out on a fortnightly rota. The bin areas and balconies should be swept on each visit, but individual bins would be tenants’ responsibility. It asked whether the resident was available on 28 September 2020 to meet at the property and discuss his concerns. The resident responded on the same day and confirmed that he would be available to meet. He continued to raise further concern that the cleaning of the mats and that the bins had not been done satisfactorily.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 September 2020 and said that it would need to change the appointment of 28 September 2020 to 2 October 2020. The resident responded on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction that the appointment had been rearranged. He added that by having the meeting on 28 September, the landlord would be able to be able to assess the cleaning just after the regular visit. He said that the door to the bin area had been jammed open and smelt of urine. He asked how often the area was disinfected. He asked that another member of staff attended on 28 September as he had adjusted his diary to fit the appointment.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 November 2020 and asked for an update on the landlord’s investigations into the cleaning at the block. The landlord responded on 6 November 2020 and confirmed that it had arranged for a joint visit with the contracted cleaning company to look at the standard of cleaning. It said that this would take place the following week and would let the resident know which day. The landlord sent a further email on 20 November 2020 and apologised for the delay in responding. It said that it would be visiting the property on 23 November 2020
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 November 2020 and said that the cleaning should have been done on the day of the meeting, but it had not been done. It asked the landlord to check this. He sent a further email to the landlord on 19 December 2020 for an update on whether it had compiled a report with its findings. He said that the basic cleaning had continued but after the last visit, the outside area at the back of the property had not been cleaned and there was no improvement to the carpets. The resident also asked the landlord for a copy of the fire safety report for the building.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2021 and asked for an update on the cleaning at the block as he had not noticed any improvement and had not received a response. He said that one of the landlord’s employees had left mud on the stairs which had been left for around ten days due to the fortnightly cleaning. He asked the landlord for a list of cleaning dates as he felt that at least one had been missed in the last month. The landlord responded on 15 February 2021 and explained that it had passed the resident’s concerns on to the cleaning contractors. It apologised that its employee had left mud on the stairwell and said that it would ask its maintenance supervisor to remind operatives to clean up after themselves. It said that it would update the resident once the cleaning contractors had provided a response.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that it had now been three months since they had met at the property and he had not received the documents he had asked for, including the schedule of dates for cleaning, the schedule of what was to be cleaned and the frequency, and a copy of the fire safety certificate. He said that no one appeared to be effectively monitoring the cleaning and asked the landlord to follow-up with the cleaning contractor. The landlord responded on 15 March 2021 and provided the first safety certificate. It said that it had asked the cleaning contractors for the other information and would send this when it was received.
  9. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 24 March 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that none of the issues he had discussed had improved in three months. He maintained his position that the cleaning was not being done to the standard that it used to be. He had still not received the details of the cleaning schedule and asked why these had not been provided if they were on file. He asked why the standard of cleanliness of the flats was not monitored frequently and expressed concern that he was paying for a service he did not receive. He asked the landlord to raise his concerns with someone in charge of the property.
  10. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised for not having provided the cleaning schedule. It had chased the cleaning contractor again that day for the information. It said that it had also passed on his comments regarding the cleaning. It was hoping to visit the property that week and would feedback its findings to him. It had been advised that day that there was an electrical socket in one of the cupboards. It said that if this was accessible, it would arrange for access to be given to the contractors so that the carpets could be hoovered. It said it would provide an update by 1 April 2021.
  11. The resident emailed on 29 March 2021 to report that no cleaning had taken place that day. He believed that it had been at least a month since the last clean. He asked the landlord to assess the refund for the management fee he paid. He sent further emails on the following day and queried why the cleaners had attended on a Tuesday rather than the Monday of that week he also continued to raise his concerns about the overall standard of cleaning. The landlord responded and confirmed that it was currently liaising with the cleaning contractor and would see whether new bins could be provided to replace the broken ones at the front of the block.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 April 2021 and said that the cleaning contractor had advised that the schedule for cleaning was every fortnight on a Monday. It said that due to the bank holiday, the next date would be 6 April 2021. They had attended that week as they had missed the clean on 22 March 2021. The issue of the cleaning had been raised and it had been assured that there would be an improvement in the standard. It said it would visit after the next cleaning date to check the standard of cleaning. It said that it would install a new power socket that week and the cleaners had been instructed to clean the mats. The landlord confirmed that it would check this following the visit. It had requested that the items left by the bin area were removed and had asked for the broken communal bin to be replaced.
  13. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and felt that the cleaning contractors could not be trusted. He added that the cleaning contractor appeared to be in breach of their contract and felt that a change of contractor would be appropriate. He suggested that the bins were put in an area which would shield them from public view. The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 7 April 2021 and explained that someone had come to clean that day but had just used a broom around the communal areas. He said that the bin areas were still filthy and there was no evidence that the external parts of the building had been cleaned. He asked the landlord to pass his concerns to its chief executive and raise a formal complaint.
  14. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 April 2021 and said it would discuss his concerns with the contractors the following week and ensure that the standards were closely monitored. It said that it would update the resident once it had assessed the situation and visited the block. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 April 2021 to acknowledge his complaint. It said that it would respond by 30 April 2021.
  15. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 April 2021 and explained the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident did not believe that its cleaning contractors are adhering to the standards of cleaning and that certain tasks were not being completed on each visit. It also acknowledged that the resident felt that the bins located at the front of the block were unsightly and asked for them to be relocated or screened off with a row of fence panels.
    2. It confirmed that it had attended the building on 20 April 2021, the day after the cleaners’ visit. It noted that whilst the block appeared to be well-maintained overall, it found that door mats needed to be swept, there were cobwebs on the internal light fittings and windows, the stair handrails were dusty in places and the bin area and cupboards needed sweeping. It noted the resident’s concerns about the smell of urine in the bin storage area but did not notice any bad smells on the visit.
    3. It acknowledged that the bin storage area was visible from the windows of the resident’s property but found that this was the most appropriate location for them to be kept due to their central location near the communal entrance to the block. It had considered moving them, however, the only location available would be closer to residents’ windows which would cause further problems. It did not feel that the cost of erecting fencing was justified or offered value for money. It did not believe that the visibility of the bin storage area would have a detrimental effect on the value of the properties.
    4. It had found that the cleaning within the block had not been carried out to the expected standard and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It explained that its cleaning contractor had identified some performance issues in the past few months and had since brought in a new member of staff. They had assured the landlord that the service would improve and the landlord confirmed that it would monitor the standards of cleaning and ensure that the block was inspected monthly between May and July 2021. It also explained that it would be meeting with its contractors more frequently to discuss its concerns. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
  16. The landlord’s internal records suggest that the resident escalated his complaint via email on 30 April 2021 although the details of this email have not been provided to this Service for review.
  17. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 May 2021 as no cleaning had taken place that week. He asked for further information about when cleaning would take place over bank holidays. The landlord responded and confirmed that it would look into this. The resident sent a further email on 6 May 2021 as there had been no cleaning and he had not received a response. He sent another email on 10 May 2021 as both the fortnightly and monthly visits had not taken place. He asked again about the refund for the payments he was making towards the cleaning. The landlord’s records show that it had raised these concerns with the cleaning contractor at this stage.
  18. The resident sent a further email on 10 May 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that his stage two complaint had not been acknowledged. He noted that when he raised his initial complaint on 7 April 2021 there had been a delay which meant the response was not sent until 30 April 2021. He had requested to escalate his complaint on 30 April 2021 and expected a response by 31 May 2021. The landlord’s records suggest that a phone call took place between the landlord and the resident on 12 May 2021. During this time, the resident continued to report that the cleaning at the property was below standard and again asked for a refund for the cleaning that had not been done.
  19. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2021 and explained the following:
    1. It had carried out a review of the cleaning at the property and a meeting had been held with the contractor to discuss the standards of cleaning. They had acknowledged that the cleaning had not been of the required standard due to some issues with a member of the cleaning team. The issues had now been resolved and they had assured the landlord that the standard of cleaning would improve. It had also installed a plug socket so that mats could be vacuumed which should make a difference to the appearance of the block.
    2. It provided a list of the cleaning standards, showing how often visits should be undertaken. It detailed the specific cleaning elements which should be done on a fortnightly, monthly and quarterly basis and confirmed that the next quarterly clean should be completed on 12 July 2021.
    3. It was currently working to make the cleaning schedules available online for tenants. It explained that when the block was due to be cleaned on a bank holiday then the clean would take place later that week. It said it would be looking to purchase some adhesive signs to display and would ask the cleaners to write the date and time of their visit. It had decided to pilot this at another block to see if it worked before implementing this elsewhere. It said that this would commence within two months.
    4. It apologised that the level of cleaning had been below standard and said it had spoken to the contractors at length regarding this. It said it would prioritise the block for inspections monthly rather than quarterly and would be completing visits the day after cleaning tasks were completed.
    5. With regard to the bin storage area, the landlord explained that it was internally reviewing its communal areas later in the year and had added the resident’s block to the list. It said it would do what it could to improve the look of the block, particularly in relation to the bins. In the meantime, it would be issuing a reminder to all residents, reminding them of their responsibilities.
    6. With regard to the resident’s request for a refund, the landlord explained that whilst the cleaning had not been at the required standard, the cleaners had attended and costs had been incurred. It said that it adjusted customer accounts at the end of the financial year to reflect any change in costs compared with the estimates already paid. As the scheduled visits had been completed, there would be no credit due for this service. It was therefore unable to offer a refund at this stage. It said that the contractors had offered to carry out a deep clean of the block free of charge and said that it would not charge for the additional inspections it would be completing.
  20. The evidence suggests that the resident was offered £50 compensation following the stage two complaint response for the time and trouble he had spent contacting the landlord.
  21. The evidence shows that the resident and the landlord maintained regular communication regarding the standard of cleaning following the final complaint response as the resident disputed that there had been any improvement. In its communication with this Service, the landlord detailed the progress that had been made in response to the resident’s stage two complaint.  It explained the following:
    1. It was in communication with its website designers and aimed to make cleaning and ground maintenance information available online.
    2. It had agreed on the design requirements for its pilot scheme and anticipated starting the pilot scheme following its monthly meeting with the contractors on 27 September 2020.
    3. It had committed to monthly inspections of the block instead of quarterly but had been inspecting the block fortnightly after each clean to ensure that cleaning standards were being maintained. It confirmed that it would continue to do so until it was satisfied that there were no further issues.
    4. It noted that only the resident had expressed dissatisfaction about the bin store area at the block and if an alternative was proposed it would need to consult with all residents to ensure they agreed with the proposed changes and the cost of the changes.
    5. The landlord was not happy with the standard of a deep clean and arranged for a further visit on 7 June 2021. A deep clean of the bin area was also carried out on 7 June 2021. The contractors also carried out an additional clean of the external windows on 20 July 2021 free of charge. It confirmed that the quarterly clean would be done in addition to the fortnightly clean at no extra cost.
  22. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and felt that the landlord had repeatedly promised improvements which had not been the case. He was concerned about the below standard cleaning had asked for a refund on the amount he had paid for cleaning over several years. He also wanted compensation for the time and trouble he had spent pursuing this matter over several years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that he had been raising concerns about the cleaning for approximately three years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from September 2020 onward, which is roughly six months prior to the formal complaint being made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas at his property and the location of the bin storage area. 

  1. The landlord’s communal area standard confirms that it would be responsible for ensuring that the communal areas are clean, safe and well-maintained. It states that communal areas in blocks of flats would be regularly cleaned by a contracted cleaning company. The landlord would therefore be responsible for discussing any concerns about cleaning with the contracted company and ensuring that the cleaning carried out complied with its service standards.
  2. Following the resident’s communication in September 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by discussing his concerns with its cleaning contractors and visiting the property. The resident spent a significant amount of time pursuing this matter and the landlord’s initial communication was poor, with the resident needing to follow-up for responses on multiple occasions and many responses being delayed. This is likely to have caused the resident inconvenience as it was not clear if any action was being taken in regard to his concerns.
  3. Where the evidence indicates that there were failings by a landlord with respect to the delivery of services, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord has made significant attempts to put things right following the resident’s complaint. It improved its communication since the initial correspondence in late 2020 and remained in regular contact with the resident following its stage two response. It has attempted to put things right by maintaining regular contact with the cleaning contractors, inspecting the block and the cleaning carried out at more regular intervals, arranging for additional cleans to take place at no cost to the residents where the standard of cleaning was not satisfactory, took steps to improve its transparency by publishing information about its cleaning and the actions it was taking to improve this through its website, taking accountability by arranging for a ‘sign in’ board to be place for cleaners to sign on each visit and reviewing the communal areas to see whether anything further could be done to improve the overall appearance of the block.
  5. There are limited further steps the landlord would be expected to take in order to improve the cleaning at the block and it would not be expected to use an alternative contracted company unless its attempts had failed, or the cleaning contractors failed to engage with the process. The landlord would not be expected to relocate the bin storage areas at the resident’s request but it was reasonable for it to add this to its review of communal areas across its sites to see whether anything further could be done to improve the appearance of the block.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation as it acknowledged that the cleaning had been below standard. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the cleaning was not always undertaken according to the schedule, but the landlord made efforts to redress this by the additional cleaning and other resolution actions mentioned above. It is on this basis that this Service concludes that the refund of the service charges is not warranted in this case. However, it has not acknowledged the inconvenience caused by its initial communication failures. This Service finds that the offer of £50 for the time and trouble the resident had spent contacting the landlord is not proportionate to the overall impact on the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts in the range of £50 -£250 are proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. This includes occasions where there were repeated failures to respond to communication, failure to meet service standards and a resident needing to repeatedly chase responses, necessitating in an unreasonable level of involvement by that resident. Whilst the landlord’s offer was within this range specified, given the level of involvement by the resident in finding a resolution, the initial poor communication and delay in acting on his concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer a larger amount of compensation.
  8. In this case, the landlord has not fully acknowledged or addressed the level of inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its initial communication in its complaint responses. In view of this, this Service finds that additional compensation to the resident is warranted. It is clear that the resident still feels that the cleaning could do with some improvement. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it has taken several points of learning from the resident’s complaint and is making appropriate efforts to ensure that the standard of cleaning improves

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days. If at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to offer an explanation and provide a new timescale, this should not exceed a further ten days.
  2. In this case, the resident asked for his complaint to be raised on 7 April 2021. This was not acknowledged until 16 April 2021 and the landlord’s stage one complaint response was not provided until 30 April 2021. This response was issued seven working days outside of the landlord’s timescale at stage one and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had apologised or explained this delay. Whilst the details of the resident’s escalation request on 30 April 2021 have not been provided to this Service for review, it is noted that there was a delay in acknowledging this request. Despite this, the stage two complaint response was issued on 28 May 2021, which was within the landlord’s timescale for handling complaints at stage two.
  3. There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s stage one complaint. there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had offered any form of redress to the resident for this delay. In view of this it is recommended that the landlord offers additional compensation to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the location of the bin storage area, the standard of cleaning in the communal areas at his property and consequent request for a refund of his service charge. This is specifically with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation offered by the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to improve and monitor the standards of cleaning in the resident’s building following his complaint. However, it has not fully addressed its initial lack of communication and the offer of £50 compensation was not proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. There was a delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged or apologised for this delay in its complaint responses or made the resident aware of the reasons for the delay.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200, comprised of:
      1. £50 as previously offered, in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had spent contacting the landlord.
      2. An additional £100 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s initial lack of communication with the resident.
      3. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.