B3 Living Limited (202015263)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015263

B3 Living Limited

30 March 2022


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 communal cleaning.

Determination (jurisdiction decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint as set out above is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate further.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a first-floor studio flat in a block of thirteen flats.
  2. The resident is dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning at the building and has informed the landlord that she considers that it has been ineffective in managing the cleaning and use of the building by non-residents.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2020 about the standard of cleaning requesting the cleaner’s checklist and the time allocated for each visit. In addition, she advised if it could not provide a reasonable explanation for the condition of the building, and it refused to undertake a deep clean of the building then she would approach the First Tier Tribunal for a resolution.
  4. The landlord responded on 17 December 2020 providing the requested checklist and information on the hours worked and duties carried out by the caretaking team.
  5. Between 12 January 2021 and 19 March 2021 when the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, there was communication between the resident and the landlord about the following:
  1. Range of duties carried out by the caretaking team on a weekly basis.
  2. Explanation that the building design could not prevent detritus entering the building.
  3. Explanation that residents of a neighbouring block were not restricted from using the bin chamber.
  4. An assessment of the cleaning was carried out by the landlord who considered the cleaning to be of a good standard.
  5. Explanation provided to the Council about graffiti removal and cleaning standards.
  1. The resident made an application to the First Tier Tribunal, regarding her liability to pay service charges. The application to the tribunal included the caretaking and cleaning element of her service charge. The tribunal considered the evidence including photographs provided by the resident and the landlord. The resident raised concerns about the standard of cleaning in the block as well as the time spent by the caretaker carrying out their responsibilities. 
  2. In relation to the resident’s application about the cleaning, the First Tier Tribunal decided on 28 April 2021, that ‘the cost as calculated by the Respondent was payable under the lease and reasonably incurred… The relevant areas are open to the elements and photographs in the fire risk assessment report give the impression of a better overall condition… It seems to us that better cleaning is likely to be more expensive than this, given the other work the cleaners need to do in relation to the bin store, collecting litter and the like. that though the ‘depth and rigor of the cleaning’ could be better, a reasonable standard of cleaning was delivered.’
  3. The resident approached this Service on 15 May 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the quality of the cleaning in her building. She advised the common parts were not kept to a reasonable standard as the floors and stairs were not mopped and that rubbish bags were not removed by the landlord in a timely manner.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (o) of the Approved Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, (or any other Ombudsman) has already decided upon.
  2. The resident made an application to the First Tier Tribunal about liability to pay the service charges for the cleaning at the block. When determining the application, the FTT has considered whether the cleaning is being provided to a reasonable standard, to do this the tribunal considered the evidence provided by the resident in her submission.  In effect, the tribunal has already considered the same issues and evidence that the resident has brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. The Scheme allows the Ombudsman at paragraph (i) to refer complaints to the first-tier tribunal if it is considered a more appropriate method of providing a remedy to the dispute. In this complaint the resident has already applied to the FTT who has issued its determination and the Ombudsman will not revisit the same complaint another Ombudsman or dispute resolution body has already decided upon.