LiveWest Homes Limited (202123970)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123970

LiveWest Homes Limited

27 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning and communal grounds maintenance.

Background

2. The resident lives in a flat on an estate managed by the landlord. The resident has a periodic weekly tenancy.
3. Since 2017 the resident raised concerns about the standard of cleaning and ground maintenance on the estate she lives at. In 2019 the landlord’s previous estate team leader for the estate expressed concerns about ground maintenance. These issues were ongoing, and the resident continued to raise issues throughout 2020. Between July and August 2020, the resident made various estate cleaning and maintenance requests to her landlord. The resident met with the landlord on 14 July 2020 and the landlord agreed to take certain actions.
4. Throughout August 2020 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the concerns raised and this led to a follow-up meeting on 10 September 2020 between the two parties to address this. On 26 February 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint about her continuing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s cleaning and maintenance. Specifically, she reported:
   1. external lights left on continually or not adjusted for daylight saving hours in the past.
   2. rubbish being present on the estate grounds.
   3. overgrown vegetation.
   4. rubbish falling out of bins in a poorly designed bin area.
   5. other residents inappropriately disposing of furniture by the bins.
5. The resident also claimed that the vacuuming done was sub-standard and there was dust on windowsills, smudge marks on an internal communal glass door, drains with debris in them, and leaf litter. The resident provided photographs taken on 25 February 2021 to support her assertions. The resident complained that there was a lack of inspections done at the estate.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process on 3 March 2021. On 10 March 2021, the landlord stated in response to the complaint that:
   1. an extra weekly visit to the estate to identify any works was scheduled and an estate team leader would inspect the estate.
   2. it could not disclose details of the discussions with any staff members because of data protection reasons but would ensure appropriate action in relation to any performance issues.
   3. some of the landlord’s equipment needed to clean was unavailable due to servicing and this negatively affected service standards.
   4. it was aware the drains need clearing and promised to do this but could not treat the weeds until the weather conditions allowed.
   5. it had only received complaints from the resident.
   6. overall the estate management was being carried out to a good standard but as there were areas for improvement it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint.
7. On 15 March 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaint process. The landlord subsequently issued its stage two response on 26 March 2021, setting out that:
   1. it was aware of previous complaints but was focussing on this one and the reasons for escalation.
   2. it agreed that surveying the site before and after each visit was a good idea and would put this idea forward.
   3. it was sorry that the resident felt the need to pick up rubbish.
   4. it accepted that the use of the word ‘good’ was subjective but that it felt that the estate management was good.
   5. it would clear out the drains, but this could take several weeks as it must prioritise work.
   6. it would arrange for the resident to meet with the estate team leader to discuss their ongoing concerns about specifications.
   7. it accepted the photos the resident provided as evidence of some dust, a bin lid ajar, smears on the internal door glass, evidence of some rubbish, twigs, and leaves but the issues raised, in its view, were relatively nominal and did not amount to a service failure.
   8. improvements were possible but directed the resident to the estate team leader as the best way to achieve these.
   9. there had been a service failure for not responding to the complaint at stage 2 on time and offered £25.
8. On 31 March 2021, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £50 as it accepted there was another service failure in responding to the complaint at stage one. The resident accepted this offer to deal with their concerns about complaint handling service failure. The resident explained that she would be asking the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s response to her concerns about the standard of cleaning and maintenance of communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communal cleaning and ground maintenance spans several years, her formal complaint was only made on 26 February 2021. This has limited the scope of what this Service can investigate as generally, the Ombudsman will only investigate matters which were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within six months of the issue arising. Given the back-and-forth communication, and action which this Service has considered to be particularly relevant, this investigation will look back as far as July 2020. All prior historic matters have nonetheless been taken into consideration.

Standard of maintenance and cleaning

10. On 14 July 2020, the landlord said it would power wash the outside area within the coming weeks and it also agreed to cut back and remove weeds from the herb garden and adjust the time clocks and see if it could adjust the timer on the lights. In July 2020, the landlord also said it would keep the bin store area tidy and clean and explore options for the shrub area, and periodically cut the bush at the front.
11. The landlord reassured the resident on 6 August 2020 that it would clean the internal windows and it would sweep the leaves, pick litter, remove weeds, and check the bin store the next day. The resident provided some images taken on the morning of 7 August 2020 showing some leaves present. The landlord did not show that they had addressed the resident’s concerns.
12. On 14 August 2020, the landlord informed the resident it had cut back the weeds in the herb garden and needed to consult other residents about the future maintenance of the herb garden. It also confirmed that it adjusted the clock timings for the door entry and lights. The landlord’s response shows that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and acted on them. On 14 August 2020, it clarified that it hoped to power wash the outside within a fortnight. This was reasonable given the disclosure that there was only one power washer which is shared between estates.
13. In August 2020, the landlord provided the resident with photographs showing it had cut the bush and cleaned the bin store. It also said that it was consulting over the future of the shrub area but advised remedial works would have to wait until late autumn or winter. The landlord also said that it would get a quote to deal with the large hedge.
14. The evidence indicates that between July and August 2020, the landlord had completed the resident’s requests apart from power washing, cutting back the herb garden and hedge, and dealing with the shrub area. It had not completed these requests in August 2020 because it was unable to. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in the Ombudsman’s opinion as it was reasonable for the landlord to consult other residents who have an interest in communal planted areas. It was also reasonable for it to schedule work for an appropriate time of year and to explain it only had one power washer.
15. By February 2021 when the resident made a formal complaint the landlord had resolved many issues like the cutting back of foliage and the timings of lights in communal areas. The outstanding issues of concern to the resident related to rubbish on the estate, the standard of internal cleaning, rubbish in the bin store area not being deposited properly by residents, and furniture left by other residents. The landlord explained to the resident that some aspects of her complaint were outside their control which was reasonable.
16. Whilst the service acknowledges the frustration residents feel about issues created by other residents the landlord can only encourage residents to act responsibly. Landlords can enforce tenancy agreements where there is evidence of a breach, and it is appropriate. The landlord produced evidence to show it had placed signage up instructing residents to use the bins properly and had written to residents in December 2020 to ask that they act responsibly.
17. There is insufficient evidence to show the landlord had enough cause to take legal action against any offending residents. The actions the landlord took showed it was making reasonable efforts to inform other residents and deal with the resident’s concerns. The landlord had made clear that there were on occasion mitigating circumstances in respect of the grounds maintenance not always being up to standard. This was because there was only one pressure washer or because there was only one bin for green waste.
18. The landlord, as part of the stage one complaint, also agreed to clear the drains and treat the weeds when the weather allowed. It further elaborated in its stage two response that it will clear out the drains, but this could take several weeks as it must prioritise work. The landlord’s response was reasonable given its explanations and the fact that the requested work was not urgent or critical.
19. The resident mentioned in her formal complaint that she reported some furniture by the communal bins on 12 February 2021. The evidence from the landlord shows that it requested the owner of the item to move it on the same day which was reasonable. The photographic evidence of the bins provided with the complaint of 26 February 2021 did not show any bin bags on the floor. The image showed elevated bin lids that did not substantiate the complaint about rubbish on the floor.
20. The landlord suggested in its stage two response that the resident meet with the estate team leader and the resident agreed to this. This was a reasonable step to take to ensure it can address the resident’s ongoing concerns and the resident had requested this on 15 March 2021.
21. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord sought to reassure the resident about the standard of the grounds maintenance and cleaning services provided. It claimed it was providing a full specification of cleaning and maintenance services. The landlord in its response to stage one explained that it would arrange for an extra weekly visit to the estate by a building supervisor and an inspection by an estate team leader. However, no evidence has been provided to show the outcome of these visits or inspection.
22. The resident provided photographic evidence from 25 February 2021 showing aspects of the cleaning that were lacking in the resident’s opinion. On 15 March 2021, the resident provided the landlord with photographic evidence of weeds, dust, and leaves on the estate. On 20 March 2021, the resident provided photographic evidence of some rubbish. These are issues that the landlord had said it will address. It is not possible for the service to authenticate when the resident took these photographs, but the landlord accepted in its stage two response there were some areas for improvement.
23. The landlord responded appropriately to the residents’ concerns agreeing on the actions it would take. It also agreed a pragmatic way forward which was in accordance with the resident’s stated wishes. However, there was some inconsistency in the landlord’s response between stage one and stage two. At stage one the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint about cleaning and maintenance on the basis that “… some areas may have been missed.” However, at stage two it did not uphold this aspect of their complaint despite the photographic evidence provided since the stage one response and the landlord accepting at stage two that “…there are clearly improvements which can be made to the overall standard and appearance of the scheme.”
24. There are three principles that guide the Ombudsman’s approach: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge there were some areas for improvement in its stage two response. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the first two of these principles and the landlord’s inconsistency which was not explained, it should have offered a level of discretionary compensation.
25. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation of £100 would be appropriate considering the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website). This is to reflect the distress, disappointment and inconvenience the resident experienced.

Determination (decision)

26. 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 reports of problems with the ground maintenance and cleaning services.

Orders

27. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident within four weeks of the date of this report £100 to reflect the failings in its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the ground maintenance and cleaning services.

Recommendations

28. It is recommended that the landlord clarify with residents the frequency of works in the specifications for cleaning and ground maintenance and arrange regular site visits every few months to ensure the maintenance and cleaning are in accordance with this.
29. It is recommended that the landlord explains to the resident how it intends to monitor the performance of its staff and contractors.
30. It is recommended that the landlord increase the capacity or size of the bin for depositing green waste and invest in more power washers.
31. It is recommended that the landlord write to all residents and remind them about the responsible disposal of litter, rubbish, and bulky items.
32. The landlord should confirm its intentions to the service in respect of these recommendations within eight weeks of the date of this report.