Thrive Homes Limited (202204257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204257

Thrive Homes Limited

19 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communal cleaning.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The resident complained to the landlord in September 2021 about the standard of communal cleaning on the estate. There is reference to a stage one response being provided by the landlord on 19 October 2021, but no copy appears in the records provided.
The resident complained again about the condition of the communal areas on 17 February 2022, providing an image of the cleaning log sheet which recorded three cleaning visits in the previous four months. The landlord logged the complaint, and provided a stage two response on 24 March 2022, offering £578 in compensation and saying that it would begin monitoring the communal cleaning as of 4 April 2022.
The landlord attended on 4 April 2022 to assess the cleaning of the estate. It then arranged for a deep clean to take place on 14 May 2022. However, on 17 May 2022 the resident again reported poor cleaning standards, stating that stains remained on the balconies, and that the bin chute and room had not been cleaned.
Subsequently, the landlord reattended the estate on 23 May 2022 and cleaned the bin storage area (the resident disputes this), but informed the resident that it would need to attend again to clean the bin chutes (which was later noted to have been done on 6 June 2022). There is also reference to a site visit on 26 May 2022 followed by a further site visit with the cleaning supervisor on 31 May 2022.
The landlord provided an additional and final complaint response on 15 June 2022. It stated that all areas which the resident had reported as being in a poor condition had been deep cleaned as a result of her reports. However, it acknowledged delays in the time taken to resolve the complaint and that this had caused the resident inconvenience. It also assured the resident that it would continue to monitor the standard of cleaning around the estate, but it was satisfied that it had taken fair and reasonable action to improve the standard since the resident’s reports.
As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £677.86. This was comprised of:
1. £100 for time taken to investigate the resident’s complaint;
2. £296.37 reimbursement for three months of cleaning, and;
3. £281.49 reimbursement for management fees (calculated at 40% of the fees over a three year period) as a ‘gesture of goodwill’.
It said, ‘We will continue to closely monitor the cleaning at the property and take steps to ensure that this is being carried out to a reasonable standard.’
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the communal cleaning. She has explained that she has had to endure, ‘disgusting and unclean conditions’ for three years, and that the landlord’s offer of three months reimbursement of cleaning costs failed to reflect this. She said there had been no improvement in the block or the frequency or standard of cleaning. The resident has said that the communal areas had devalued her own property, which she had been trying to sell, and also caused her to have an accident and slip over due to a lack of lighting and a greasy floor.
The resident has stated,’ I’m exhausted from having to complain to Thrive homes …I am not being listened to properly by them & them not acting on the issues I have addressed… the standard of cleaning hasn’t improved.’ As a resolution the resident would like the communal areas to be cleaned to a better standard, and a higher amount of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The leasehold agreement sets out that the landlord was responsible for keeping the communal areas clean and tidy.
The landlord’s contract management document sets out the actions the landlord would take to ensure that contractors were delivering as per contract. It states that an estate inspection of communal areas should take place every six weeks and all recall visits (where standards had not been met) would be post-inspected. Deep cleans would be used to get an estate back up to standard, at no additional cost to customers.

Scope of investigation

The resident states that poor standards of communal cleaning had been an ongoing issue for approximately three years. However, under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In this case, the formal complaint was made in September 2021. Therefore, this assessment focuses on events from 2021 onward.
The resident has stated that poor communal cleaning impacted the value and sale of her property. The Ombudsman cannot make an assessment of the value of the resident’s property or determine any impact the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) may have had on this. This is matter more appropriately addressed by the courts, where relevant evidence can be considered and liability assessed. The resident also seeks compensation for an injury she believes she sustained due to failings on the part of the landlord to maintain the communal area. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury. This is a matter that would be more appropriately dealt with via the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (it is noted that the landlord has said that it would refer the matter to its insurance team on the provision of further information from the resident).
The above is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Communal cleaning.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
In line with the leasehold agreement, the landlord was responsible for the cleaning of communal areas. When issues with this were reported to it, it was obliged to investigate to determine whether services were being delivered to a reasonable standard.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence such as communal cleaning logs, inspection reports, feedback from contractors, and any monitoring reports in relation to communal cleaning. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep such records so as to track and monitor the delivery of its services and contracts. Very little in the way of such evidence has been provided.
As per its contract management document, the landlord should attend the estate every six weeks to complete an estate inspection. There is no evidence of such inspections taking place, or cleaning standards being checked following on from the resident’s September 2021 contact. This represents a failing on the part of the landlord.
There is no record of the landlord inspecting the block following on from the resident’s February 2022 escalation request, but it is apparent that at some point it determined that the standard of cleaning was poor, as in its March 2022 stage two response it apologised that the level of service was below standard, said that the complaint had highlighted where improvements could be made, and offered reimbursement for three months cleaning, plus a separate compensation amount in acknowledgment of the time and effort the resident had spent raising the issue (totalling £578). This was reasonable and shows that the landlord was taking steps to ‘put things right’ for the resident. It also indicated that it would ‘learn from outcomes’ via actions it had taken to address the matter going forward, which it detailed as:
1. Requested and reviewed attendance details post the stage one complaint.
2. Reviewed quarterly estate inspections which addressed cleanliness and appearance of the building and external communal areas.
3. Met with the manager and supervisor of the cleaning company to go through concerns with cleaning.
4. Agreed a monitoring period where cleaning would be post inspected.
5. Requested credits for non-attendance verified through triangulated data check.
However, while these actions were reasonable in themselves, there is little supporting evidence of them and no record of their outcomes: For example, there are no details of quarterly estate inspections, or what the ‘monitoring period’ was to be, or copies of attendance records.
As above, the landlord should have inspected the estate every six weeks. There is no evidence of any inspections being carried out until the ‘monitoring period’ began on 4 April 2022, seven months after the resident reported issues. This is not in-line with the contract management document, and so was a failing.
The ‘monitoring period’ began on 4 April 2022 following on from a scheduled clean that day, but there is no contemporaneous record the outcome of this visit, and it is unclear exactly what the landlord’s findings were. Neither is it apparent how long this monitoring period was to be, or what the monitoring entailed. However, the records show that on 29 April 2022 the landlord requested that a deep clean be carried out, suggesting that cleaning had not been carried out to a reasonable standard. This was reasonable and in line with the contract management document. However, the fact that cleaning standards had still not improved several months after the stage one complaint, and two months after the stage two escalation, represents a failure on the part of the landlord over a considerable period to ensure that it was delivering a reasonable standard of service.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the standard of cleaning in May 2022, stating that the deep clean that was carried out on 14 May 2022 had left ‘awful stains’ on the balcony, the bin room had not been cleaned, and nor had the hallway steps. In emails to the resident in mid-May 2022 the landlord said that on 4 April 2022 it had found the cleaning to be ‘below the expected standard’. In an email dated 17 May 2022 the landlord said that it had ‘been working with the contractors towards a solution that resets the standard of cleaning on site’, but there is no further detail on what this entailed, or what solution was found. The landlord also said in this email that it was satisfied with the 14 May 2022 deep clean that had been carried out (which it had assessed via photographs), and that the bin chute would be cleaned in the next week.
The landlord’s website states that every quarter cleaning should be completed in bin areas, cages and chutes, but there is no evidence to suggest that cleaning of these areas took place during the period in question. It is unclear why the bin room and chute still had not been cleaned at this point. Internal emails from the following few days then show the landlord noting that the bin room may have been ‘missed’ and asking contractors to attend to clean this. This again suggests a failing on the part of the landlord to ensure that cleaning standards were reasonable, and a lack of monitoring once cleaning had taken place to ensure that all areas had been cleaned.
The records then refer to another attendance to clean on 23 May 2022, but again the resident reported that the bin room was not addressed, and there is no record of the landlord attending to check this. In late May 2022 the resident met with the landlord at the block to inspect and point out the areas she was dissatisfied with, however there is no record of this or the outcome. While it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the block with the resident to provide her with the opportunity to highlight her concerns, this should have happened sooner.
There is also reference in the records to a visit on 31 May 2022 ‘with the cleaning supervisor to highlight the areas identified on the joint inspection and have those addressed.’ Again, there is no record of this visit, but it suggests that there were still issues with the standard of cleaning. In its final June 2022 complaint response the landlord said that the bin chutes would be cleaned on 6 June 2022. It is unclear why, several months after the resident raised concerns, this had still not been done. The records refer to another deep clean in July 2022, suggesting that the general cleaning was still not being carried out to standard.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning at the block, and little in the way of evidence to demonstrate coordinated and regular monitoring of standards, despite it being acknowledged that these had been poor. This led to time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter, frustration, and the impact of living with an unreasonable standard of communal cleaning.
In its final June 2022 complaint response, the landlord to some extent recognised delays in the time taken to conduct a thorough investigation into the complaint, and the impact this had on addressing the cleaning issues. But it did not adequately address the resident’s concerns that cleaning was still not being carried out to standard. The letter, dated 15 June 2022, was confusing in places, for example stating, ‘We will therefore be arranging for the following action to be taken in order to ensure this situation continues to be monitored and that the cleaning is carried out to a reasonable standard: Our Contracts Lead will be on site on Tuesday 31 May 2022 with the cleaning supervisor to highlight the areas identified on the joint inspection and have those addressed.’ Given the letter was dated 15 June 2022, this action should already have been taken, but there is no reference to what the outcome was, or detail on how standards would be monitored going forward.
The letter also set out learning that the landlord had taken from the case, and offered £100 in compensation for the impact the delay in addressing the complaint had on the resident. This was reasonable and shows that the landlord was continuing to make efforts to ‘put things right; and learn from outcomes’. It brought the total amount of compensation to £678. £296 of this amount was reimbursement for three months cleaning costs, and so an overall amount of £382 was provided in compensation for the time, trouble and delays that the resident experienced.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance suggests amounts of between £100 and £600 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact: The £382 falls reasonably within this bracket. However, as there was a further two month period following on from the March 2022 compensation offer where the evidence available indicates that cleaning remained below standard, an order is made for additional reimbursement of the cleaning fees for this period, at £200.
Further, financial compensation was insufficient to fully ‘put things right’ for the resident, as there is little evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took robust action to ensure that standards of communal cleaning were monitored, and therefore it also cannot be said that it has ‘learnt from outcomes’. As such orders and recommendations have been made to improve the landlord’s service to the resident and enable it to take a proactive approach in resolving communal cleaning issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £877. If the £677.86 already offered to the resident has already been paid, this can be deducted from this total.
2. Write to this Service, copying in the resident, detailing how it will monitor communal cleaning, to include the frequency of any inspections/checks, to ensure that standards are being met, and what processes are in place to address this if it is found standards have not been met.
3. Review its record keeping practices, to determine how it will ensure that records are kept that allow it to track and monitor the delivery of communal cleaning services.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider meeting the resident during a cleaning inspection, to allow the opportunity for feedback .