Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202012877)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012877

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group (2) Limited

01 February 2023 (amended at review)

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 handling of:
   1. The level and standard of cleaning services at the resident’s property, including his requests for information about this.
   2. The increase in and reasonableness of the service charges.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a two bedroomed ground floor flat under the terms of a Lease Agreement dated 14 July 2003. The block contains six properties, the upper levels being accessed by stairs only. It is agreed that the lease contains provision for the landlord to raise service charges for, amongst other things, regular cleaning of the stairwells and communal areas.
3. On 19 October 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that the costs in the service charge accounts for this activity for 2019/20 had increased by 114%. They were then estimated to be 11% lower for the following year, 2020/21. No explanation for these changes had been given and the resident wanted a breakdown of how the figures had been reached. The resident asserted to the landlord that its cleaning operatives did not fully carry out their work anyway and tended to sit in their vehicle, avoiding their duties instead. He stated the quality of the service provided was unacceptable and he was dissatisfied with having to pay for it. The resident pointed out he had made a similar complaint in 2012/13.
4. During the complaint process, the landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the costs. It stated it had investigated its operatives’ conduct but it would be “unfair and unethical” to disclose details of those individuals’ performance management by their line manager. The landlord confirmed that operatives completed timesheets and that they used an electronic time recording system to log their time and whereabouts. In addition, their vehicles were subject to trackers – the data from which could be used by landlords where needed in an investigation. Operatives carried out some duties away from site, such as updating health & safety records, reporting any fly tipping/bulk waste and to record outstanding repairs. The landlord supplied the resident with a spreadsheet which set out a chronology of attendances to illustrate the level of service offered.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. He wants the landlord to carry out a proper investigation of its operatives, although he does not state what this would entail in his view. He has also suggested that the cleaning costs should be capped at a figure which was agreed following his 2012/13 complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

6. Before assessing this complaint, it is necessary to clarify the extent of our investigation of the issues raised by the resident as follows.
   1. In accordance with Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”), this Service cannot consider complaints about the level of service charges or the amount of any increase. Such issues can be referred to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can consider the way in which a landlord has administered the resident’s service charge account. This would include looking at the quality of the information provided to the resident, whether the accounts contain errors, and any delays in providing information about charges.
   2. In accordance with Paragraph 42 (b) of the Scheme, this Service cannot consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. In this case the residents refers to having first made a complaint to the landlord in 2012 about communal cleaning services with a final outcome in early 2013. That complaint is historic in nature and will not be considered here further although it may be referred to, to provide context.
   3. Further, in accordance with Paragraph 42(p) of the Scheme, this Service cannot consider complaints where the outcome sought is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The resident has raised the possibility of the cleaning costs being capped at the rate he asserts was agreed following his earlier complaint. This would involve considering the level of charges which is the area of the First Tier Tribunal and which cannot be provided by this Service.
   4. Finally, the resident has advised this Service that he has a large number of photographs that he wishes to rely on in support of his complaint and which he considers evidence a lack of activity by the landlord’s operatives. In investigating this case we have not sought to determine the level of activity of operatives and the standard of the cleaning service; as stated above, the investigation has focussed on the way that the landlord has administered the landlord’s service charge and how it responded to the resident’s formal complaint. 

The level and standard of cleaning services at the resident’s property, including his requests for information about this.

7. The resident raised the question of operatives’ productivity and value for money in his complaint. The landlord’s internal emails demonstrate that its complaints team raised this with the relevant service team(s) and that the resident’s concerns were looked into, nothing amiss being identified.
8. The landlord declined to give the resident evidence/details of its performance management of individual operatives which the Ombudsman considers was reasonable under the circumstances. This is because the performance management of individuals is an employment matter which falls outside the landlord/tenant relationship and the landlord has to bear in mind employee confidentiality. The landlord did, however, set out for the resident how it monitors its operatives’ movements in terms of vehicle tracking and the completion of timesheets/logs and it provided spreadsheets showing the frequency of visits. The spreadsheets also shows the specification for the cleaning service, with the contractor required to mark each item as completed. In doing so, the landlord took reasonable steps to demonstrated that the cleaning service was being provided.
9. The landlord has not demonstrated, however, that it conducts any site visits (either scheduled or unplanned) to check the quality of the work done. It might reasonably have been expected to do this occasionally – although the costs of doing so would have to be borne in mind. It might reasonably have been expected to offer such an inspection in the light of the resident’s complaint. However, a finding that this represented a service failing on the landlord’s part will not be made at this point. This is because the issue was not raised with the landlord until the complaint was made. The landlord had no opportunity to “handle” the report before its actions were criticised. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident will state the issue was raised in the historic complaint in 2012/13 but that was too far in the past to expect the landlord to still be acting on the outcome of it.
10. A recommendation, however, will be made for the landlord to consider whether “spot checks” are required and how these might affect the economics of the cleaning service. 

The increase in and reasonableness of the service charges.

11. As stated above, this Service cannot consider the level of the charges for the cleaning or how reasonable they are/were. It can, however, consider how the landlord handled the provision of information about the increase to the resident.
12. It is noted that the resident’s request for information about the increased cleaning costs was contained in his complaint of 19 October 2020. The landlord had not had the opportunity, therefore, to respond to the request to provide this information before the complaints process was entered into.
13. Initially the landlord explained the reasoning behind the increase – that the facility had been underestimated in recent years. It also provided a weekly costing. This was provided within a reasonable timeframe – on 3 November 2020. After being pressed further by the resident, the landlord provided a breakdown of that figure in terms of labour, materials, overheads, and transport costs. Again, this was provided within a reasonable amount of time, the request being made on 27 November 2020 and responded to on 16 December 2020 (the resident having agreed to extra time for a response). By providing this level of detail, the landlord took reasonable steps to make clear how the costs from which the resident’s charge was calculated were incurred. Therefore, no service failings have been identified in this respect.
14. It is noted that as a result of the resident’s complaint the landlord identified that it would be a good idea in future to include explanations for unusual or unexpected increases in its service charge information, recording that in an internal “Lessons Learned” document. This was an appropriate observation to make and demonstrates the landlord’s openness to making service improvements in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principle that landlords should learn from complaints.

The resident’s complaint.

15. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The first stage provides for a complaint to be acknowledged within two working days with confirmation of the case handler and scope of the investigation. A full response is then to be provided within ten working days. The complaint will then be treated as resolved and closed after 28 days if there is no response.
16. However, if the resident remains dissatisfied they can request the landlord to escalate their complaint to the next level – which is a stage two review. The policy provides for the escalation request to be acknowledged within two working days, confirming who will carry out the review and when a response should be expected – typically within ten working days of agreement to escalate. There is some flexibility on this timetable, by agreement, and particularly for more complex complaints.
17. In this case the complaint was made on 19 October 2020 and a response given in writing on 3 November 2020, which is 11 working days later. No written acknowledgement was sent but the response refers to the landlord having contacted the resident by telephone to discuss the nature of the complaint. It is reasonable to conclude that that contact was made by the case handler and that they introduced themselves as dealing with the matter.
18. On 27 November 2020 the resident sent to the landlord an escalation request setting out his reasons why he remained dissatisfied. A written response was given on 16 December 2020, some 13 working days later. Again, no written acknowledgement was sent but it is noted that the response letter referred to both the landlord discussing the situation with the resident and to him allowing additional time for the review to be conducted.
19. The purpose of the various contacts provided for in the policy is to ensure the resident is not ‘left in the dark’. The resident needs to know that the landlord has properly understood the nature of the complaint, has set out who, amongst its staff, will be looking into it, and to manage expectations by explaining when a response might be expected. Whilst written acknowledgements were not sent, and the stage one letter was one day late, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord handled the complaint procedure reasonably because it made personal contact with the resident and the first response was only marginally out of time with no significant impact. 
20. The resident escalated the complaint because there was further information he required. The fact a complaint is escalated to stage two does not automatically mean the landlord’s complaint handling has been inadequate. The stage two response in this case, confirmed the information provided in the first response and then went into more detail, as requested by the resident. By doing so the landlord approached the complaint in a fair and reasonable way, and demonstrated its intention to resolve the complaint. Therefore no service failing has been identified.

Determination

The level and standard of cleaning services at the resident’s property, including his requests for information about this.

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.

The increase in and reasonableness of the service charges.

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.
23. In accordance with Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the aspect of the complaint regarding the amount of service charge paid (or any increase) falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

The resident’s complaint.

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

25. The landlord to consider whether “spot checks” are required at the block the property is situated in regarding the cleaning service and how such visits might affect the economics of that service. 
26. The landlord to consider the possibility of other ways to monitor the performance of the contractor.